Final report and recommendations of the Hazardous Waste Disposal Committee

Final Report and Recommendations
of the
Hazardous Waste Disposal Committee
Submitted to the Governor and the Legislature
January 12, 1993
ARIZONA DEPT. OF liBRARY
ARCHIVES &PUBLIC RECORDS
.JAN 151991
STATE DOCUMENTS
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL COMMITTEE REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface
Executive Summary
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
• 3
. 7
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
Introduction and Background
Arizona's Hazardous waste Capacity Assurance
Obligations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of the federal Capacity Assurance Plan
requirements and Arizona's status
Arizona's Hazardous waste Stream .
In-State Generation/Importation/Exportation
The What, Where and Who of hazardous waste
generation (importation and exportation) in Arizona
Arizona's Incinerable Hazardous Waste Stream.
Current Treatment and Disposal Practices . . .
Where does Arizona generated hazardous waste go
today and which EPA-approved technologies or other
practices are utilized
Evaluation of the Scientific Panel Report
Hazardous waste disposal/recycling technology
assessment
Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization in
Arizona
Reported and/or estimated amounts of hazardous
waste reduced through pollution prevention/waste
minimization practices by Arizona generators
12
20
24
43
48
53
57
LG- j I ;),' H/9j~
VIII.
IX.
utilization of the Estrella Point Site in Mobile .
Background history and status of permits issued at
the site
Legal issues involving the disposal of
hazardous waste in Arizona
Committee Recommendations to the Governor and the
Legislature
2
65
77
Preface
This report by the Hazardous Waste Disposal Committee has been
prepared in two parts. Part one contains the body of text with
tables/maps included in the text and nine attachments. All tables
and maps in this report are based on 1990 data analyzed by the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) except for the
waste minimization and household waste information, which includes
1991 data. Part two is the underlying data that was provided to
the Committee in developing the report, and is found in the
appendices listed below which are on file and available for pUblic
review at ADEQ.
PART ONE ATTACBKENTS
Reference
Date
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
Attachment 6
"Arizona Waste Code Technologies" 9/92
"Hazardous Waste Sub-Committee 1/16/92
Recommendations to Scientific Panel"
*Prepared by Committee
"outline for Scientific Panel Report 2/18/92
on Hazardous Waste Treatment and
Disposal Technologies"
*Prepared by Scientific Panel
"Letter Regarding Scientific Panel 8/13/92
Report" *Prepared by Jan Radimsky,
Panel Member
"Correspondence Regarding Legal Issues 9/21/92
Before Hazardous Waste Disposal Committee"
*Prepared by Rita Pearson, Chair
"Attorney General Memorandum Responding 10/1/92
to the Committee's Legal Questions on
9/21/92" *Prepared by Beryl Dulsky
3
Attachment 7
Attachment 8
Attachment 9
12/9/92
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Proposed study: Hazardous Waste Undated
Management and Treatment for Arizona
*Prepared by Jim Kuester, Committee
Member
Correspondence from Edward Fox, ADEQ 12/9/92
Director, to EPA requesting clarification
on inclusion of exempt recyclers in
Arizona's Capacity Assurance Plan
EPA response to ADEQ exempt recycler 12/14/92
letter on 12/9/92
PART TWO BACKGROUND APPENDICES
"Distribution of 1990 Hazardous Waste 4/24/92
Generation by County"
"Magnitude and Type of , Incinerable' 9/16/92
Wastes Generated by Arizona's 44 Largest Revised
Generators in 1990"
"Potential Technology for Managing 4/3/92
Hazardous Waste Generated by LQG & SQG
in Arizona"
"The 44 Largest Generators" 9/16/92
"Potential Technology for Managing 4/3/92
Household Hazardous Waste in Arizona"
"Memorandum in Response to Previous 8/24/92
Sub-Committee Report on the Amount of
Hazardous Waste Likely to be Incinerated"
*Prepared by Joni Bosh, Committee Member
Appendix G
Appendix H
Appendix I
Appendix J
Appendix K
"Estimation of Quantity of Hazardous
Waste That May Require Incineration"
"Amount of Hazardous Waste Imported by
Two Major Recyclers, 1990"
"Disposition/Treatment of 1990 Arizona
Hazardous Waste"
"Distribution of 1990 Hazardous Waste
Generation by Treatment Technology"
"Existing Storage/Treatment Facilities
in Arizona"
3/20/92
Revised
8/31/92
4/24/92
4/24/92
8/31/92
Appendix L
Appendix M
Appendix N
Appendix 0
Appendix P
Appendix Q
Appendix R
Appendix S
Appendix T
"EPA Technologies Available for 1/91
Demonstration"
*Prepared by EPA
"Pollution Prevention Programs 2/7/92
in Arizona and in other states"
"Analysis of 1991 Waste Minimization 8/31/92
Data as Reported in the FAR"
"Briefing by Department of 12/19/91
Administration on the Estrella Point
Facility Site" *Prepared by DOA
"ADEQ Letter to DOA Terminating All 11/9/92
Permits and Permit Applications
issued to ENSCO"
"Arizona's 1992 CAP Submitted to EPA" 2/14/92
"The Disposition of 1990 Arizona Generated 9/1/92
Hazardous Waste, A Summary"
"Hazardous Waste Generated by Military 2/7/92
Facilities 1987-1990"
"Hazardous Waste Generated by Military l/'2A/r::f2
Facilities 1990" including waste codes by
facility
Appendix U
Appendix V
Appendix W
Appendix X
Appendix Y
Appendix Z
Appendix AA
"List and Description of RCRA Waste
Codes" *Prepared by EPA
"Waste Generated by Facility"
"universe of Small Quantity Generators"
"Directory of North American Waste and
Material Exchanges"
"Waste Generated by Selected Generators"
"Estimation of Household Hazardous Waste
Generation"
"1981 DHS Report to the Legislature
regarding siting a statewide hazardous
waste disposal facility in Arizona"
5
Undated
l/'2A/r::f2
l/'2A/r::f2
4/90
l/'2A/r::f2
l/'2A/r::f2
7/81
Appendix BB
Appendix CC
Appendix DD
Appendix EE
"Environmental Impact statement for
the proposed Arizona hazardous waste
management facility"
"October 1990 Report of the Governor's
Hazardous Waste Technical Advisory
Committee"
Summary and status of Western States
Regional Agreement
Facility Annual Report forms, old (1990)
and new (1991)
6
7/83
10/1/90
6/18/91
1/91
Executive Summary
This report was prepared by the Hazardous Waste Disposal
Committee created under section 34, Chapter 315, Laws 1991. The
legislative mandate was to prepare a report and recommend what
actions, if any, to take regarding the use of incineration to
dispose of hazardous waste in Arizona, particularly at the
state's hazardous waste site in Mobile, Arizona. To make this
recommendation the Committee was directed to review and report on
the composition of Arizona's hazardous waste stream, compare that
waste stream with the amount of hazardous waste likely to be
incinerated, and evaluate hazardous treatment/disposal
technologies which were to be presented by a scientific panel
established pursuant to the statute.
After a year of study, this report is still incomplete. The
scientific panel failed to provide a report. Data on Arizona's
hazardous waste stream is not sUfficiently current to make final
recommendations on what types of hazardous waste
treatment/disposal should be encouraged in Arizona. Further
study is needed. However, using the available 1990 data, this
report presents, what the Committee believes is a fairly accurate
portrayal of Arizona's hazardous waste stream and several
recommendations that the Committee believes should be acted upon
without further work.
Based upon 1990 data, there were 592 generators of hazardous
waste in Arizona that generated 102,867,056 pounds (51,407 tons)
7
of hazardous waste. 98% or 100,814,244 pounds (50,407 tons) were
generated by 251 large quantity generators. 96% of the total
waste stream is composed of 12 waste types, most of which are
susceptible to recycling technologies and pollution prevention
techniques. Important to making a decision on what type of
treatment/disposal technologies are required in Arizona, only
one-quarter of the total waste stream is recurrent, meaning that
we can expect that amount to be generated each year. Projected
from 1990 data, the recurrent waste stream is 38,127,761 pounds
(19,063 tons). 43 generators produce 79% of that recurrent waste
stream (See page 28).
Arizona generated 13,348,329 pounds (6,674 tons) of
recurrent hazardous waste that was, could be or had to be
incinerated. 94% or 12,555,736 pounds (6,278 tons) were
generated by just 36 facilities. We know that of the 12,55,736
pounds, 5,761,286 pounds (2,880 tons) were recycled. Therefore,
in 1990 the amount of hazardous waste ultimately incinerated was
approximately 6,794,470 pounds (3,397 tons), 8% of Arizona's
recurrent waste stream. This number may be smaller due to double
counting. In any case, this waste stream is small when compared
to the 232,827 ton surplus incineration capacity in the Western
States.
Arizona does not have a commercial hazardous waste disposal
facility. There is one commercial treatment facility for metals
and solvents recovery which has the capacity to manage 20,038,000
pounds (10,019 tons) of waste per year. In addition there are
8
three Arizona facilities that are permitted to store hazardous
waste but they are not authorized for permanent disposal. There
are also seven treatment facilities in Arizona which are
"captive" meaning that they treat waste generated by a facility
on or off site with the same owner. Finally, there are three
recycling facilities in Arizona that are exempt from some of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations, such
as permit and reporting requirements. The two major recyclers
are World Resources and Cyprus Miami which import precious metals
containing hazardous waste sludge and then reclaim the precious
metals. The third recycling facility is Romic, which is located
on Indian lands and is under EPA jurisdiction. In 1990, 32% of
the state's total hazardous waste stream was treated at the ~ite
of generation and 10% was shipped to Arizona's treatment or
storage facilities. The remaining 58% of Arizona generated waste
was shipped out-of-state (See pages 38-39).
Two companies, World Resources and Cyprus Miami, import
electroplating sludge for the recovery of precious metals. In
1990 they accepted 38,902~624 pounds "(19,451 tons) of hazardous
waste from out-of-state. World Resources handles this material
and then exports it to New Mexico, British Columbia and Finland
for processing. Cyprus Miami accepts these wast~s and places
them in the smelter for metals recovery. In 1990 World Resources
accepted 30,357,360 pounds (15,178 tons) of precious metal
containing sludge from 21 states including Arizona. During that
same period Cyprus Miami accepted 8,545,264 pounds (4,272 tons)
9
from ten states including Arizona. For comparison Arizona
exported 58,410,468 pounds (29,205 tons) of hazardous waste to 23
states plus Finland and British Columbia (See pages 39-42).
Federal law requires Arizona, and all states, to have a plan
demonstrating its ability to treat or dispose of in-state
generated hazardous waste. While Arizona originally planned to
meet this requirement through the operation and management of the
ENSCO facility in Mobile, Arizona, this option is no longer
available because of the 1991 buyout of that facility. Since
that time Arizona has stayed in compliance with the federal
mandate through its participation in the Western States Regional
Agreement, where 13 western states have agreed to share
treatment/disposal capacity. This compliance status is
precarious because Arizona is not receiving credit from either
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the
other western states for its exempt recyclers, World Resources
and Cyprus Miami. Arizona must aggressively seek confirmation
from EPA and the other states that these recyclers count toward
Arizona's capacity. Arizona must start receiving credit for the
large amounts of hazardous waste accepted by World Resources and
Cyprus Miami.
Finally, it should be pointed out that because of incomplete
data this Committee is unable to make final recommendations on
how to use the Mobile site or what disposal or treatment
technologies are appropriate for Arizona's hazardous waste
stream. However, we have been able to determine that Arizona
10
does not have a large hazardous waste stream. The Committee has
come to the conclusion that until more information is known about
Arizona's hazardous waste stream and available technologies for
dealing with that waste stream, that the Mobile site should not
be used for any hazardous waste management activities.
Additionally, because Arizona's incinerable waste stream is so
small the Committee recommends that the state continue its ban on
incineration at state-owned facilities. Finally, the Committee
recommends that the Legislature enact an aggressive source
reduction (pollution prevention) program which, if successful,
would minimize Arizona's need for a pUblicly-owned or controlled
hazardous waste treatment or disposal facility.
11
Chapter I. Introduction and Background
This report was prepared by the Hazardous Waste Disposal
Committee (Committee) created by HB 2121 (Section' 34, Chapter
315, Laws 1991). HB 2121 directed the Committee to perform the
following tasks:
1. Evaluate the results of a scientific study prepared by
a scientific advisory panel regarding hazardous waste
treatment and disposal technologies (see Chapter VI);
2. Determine the potential reduction in the amount of
hazardous waste generated in Arizona that could result
from the application of pollution prevention and waste
minimization techniques (see Chapter VII); and,
3. Compare the total amount of hazardous waste generated
in Arizona with the amount likely to be incinerated
(See Chapter IV).
In addition, HB 2121 directed the Committee to report and
recommend to the Governor and the Legislature what actions should
be taken regarding utilization of incineration to dispose of
hazardous wastes, particularly at the state's hazardous waste
facility near Mobile, Arizona. This report was originally
scheduled to be completed by July 1, 1992; however, the statutory
reporting deadline was delayed by the Legislature until October
1, 1992, in order to permit the Committee to gather additional
information on the sUbject and to permit the Scientific Panel to
complete its report to the Committee. (See Chapter VI for a
discussion of the report prepared by the Scientific Panel).
The Committee members are as follows:
1. Senator Karan English
Chairman, Senate Environment Committee
12
2. Representative William Mundell
Chairman, House Environment Committee
3. Mr. Edward Fox
Director, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
4. Ms. Joni Bosh
Sierra Club
Public Member
5. Mr. Richard Keiffer
Manager, Safety & Environmental Protection Department,
Honeywell
Public Member
6. Dr. James Kuester
Professor, ASU College of Engineering
Public Member
7. Ms. Rita Pearson
Deputy Chief of Staff and Executive Assistant for
Environment and Natural Resources
Governor SYmington or his Designee
The Legislature determined the representative make-up of the
Committee and provided that the Governor appoint the public
members in addition to his designee. The Committee met in House
Hearing Room 1 on the following dates:
Wednesday, December 11, 1991
Thursday, December 19, 1991
Friday, January 10, 1992
Friday, January 24, 1992
Friday, February 7, 1992
Friday, February 21, 1992
Friday, April 3, 1992
Friday, April 17, 1992
Friday, May 29, 1992
Wednesday, July 22, 1992
Friday, September 4, 1992
Thursday, September 17, 1992
Thursday, October 1, 1992
Thursday, October 8, 1992
Friday, October 9, 1992
Tuesday, October·13, 1992
Thursday, October 15, 1992
Thursday, October 22, 1992
Monday, November 23, 1992
13
Wednesday, December 2, 1992
Tuesday, December 15, 1992
Monday, December 21, 1992
Wednesday, January 6, 1993
Minutes of the Committee meetings are on file in the
Secretary of the Senate's Office. Materials distributed to
Committee members in conjunction with the work of the Committee
are attached to the minutes of the pertinent Committee meeting.
Subcommittee meetings were held on the following dates:
March 23, 1992
August 13, 1992
August 31, 1992
September 4, 1992
September 9, 1992
September 11, 1992
September 23, 1992
September 24, 1992
September 30, 1992
These meetings were recorded but the tapes have not been
transcribed. However, the tapes are available upon request from
the Office of the Secretary of the Senate.
The Hazardous Waste Disposal Committee was created by the
Legislature to determine what are Arizona's hazardous waste
disposal needs in light of the state's acquisition of ENSCO's
hazardous waste disposal facility near Mobile, Arizona. The
state, under the direction of Governor SYmington, acquired the
ENSCO facility (now known as Estrella Point) in May 1991 after
extensive public opposition to this facility was expressed.
Public opposition principally focused on the following issues:
(1) the facility design originally called for a landfill, some
treatment and incineration of PCB'S, but without pUblic
involvement was expanded to include incineration of large
14
quantities of hazardous waste that could potentially create
unacceptable health hazards; (2) the pUblic opposed incineration;
(3) the site is within the aerial extent of a flood plain; and
(4) the facility was designed with an annual disposal capacity
which was significantly greater than required for Arizona's
annual hazardous waste generation, thereby requiring hazardous
waste to be imported to the facility from other states to sustain
its economic viability.
with the acquisition of the Estrella Point facility, the
state has banned incineration and conditionally banned the
importation of hazardous waste to this site. It is important to
note that these prohibitions apply to state-owned facilities only
(see A.R.S. S 49-903) and do not apply to privately-owned
hazardous waste disposal facilities.
Although the state now owns the Estrella Point facility, it
is not operational at this time (see Chapter VIII for a
description of the facility). Nevertheless, federal law requires
Arizona to provide hazardous waste management (treatment and
disposal) capacity for waste streams generated in-state (Section
104(c) (9), Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended in 1986). In addition, CERCLA
requires each state to report on its ability to manage its
hazardous waste streams in the Capacity Assurance Plan (CAP)
which is submitted biennially to the united States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for approval (see Chapter II).
15
Arizona selected the contractor to build and operate the
Mobile site in 1983 and entered into a contract with ENSCO, Inc.
in 1986. Prior to the passage of HB 2121 (Chapter 315, Laws
1991), state law required the director of ADEQ to contract for
the design, financing, construction and operation of a hazardous
waste disposal facility (A.R.S. S 49-903). Under current law (as
amended by HB 2121), the director is authorized, but not
required, to enter such a contract (A.R.S. S 49-903 as amended by
Chapter 315, Laws 1991).
Because the Estrella Point facility is not operational and
there are no other privately-owned or operated commercial
hazardous waste disposal facilities in this state, Governor
symington, on behalf of the state, chose to enter into an
interstate agreement for the management of its hazardous waste in
order to satisfy the CAP requirements. In February 1992 Arizona
joined the Western states Regional Agreement (Agreement) (see
Chapter II).
By signing the Agreement, Arizona can meet its CAP
obligations by demonstrating to EPA that the Western Region, in
which Arizona is a member, has the capacity to manage hazardous
waste generated by its member states. The member states are
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas,
Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah,
Washington and Wyoming, (hereinafter referred to as the "Western
States").
16
Membership in the Agreement should not be viewed as a
permanent solution to Arizona's CAP obligations. If the
hazardous waste management capacity of these states is fUlly
utilized by local or other out-of-state generators or the member
states determine that Arizona can no longer participate in the
Agreement, Arizona must provide adequate capacity for its
hazardous waste generators. Failure to do so will result in
federal sanctions against the state (withholding of Superfund
monies) (see Chapter II).
Given the foregoing, the Legislature determined in 1991 that
it was necessary to appoint a committee to make recommendations
to the Governor and the Legislature about the long-term
management of the state's hazardous waste. A similar committee
was created by Governor Rose Mofford by Executive Order No. 90-13
on July 11, 1990. This committee was known as the Hazardous
Waste Technical Advisory Committee and was made up of 27
individuals with technical expertise in hazardous waste
management. Some of the work done by the Technical Advisory
Committee was duplicated by this Committee and we refer you to
the October 1990 Report prepared by the Technical Advisory
Committee for a historical perspective on this issue (see
Appendix CC). The Technical Advisory Committee report provided a
glossary of terms, a discussion of the legislative history on
developing a state-owned site, a discussion of hazardous waste
transportation issues, an overview of technologies for treating
and disposing of hazardous waste and a discussion of risk
17
associated with the transportation and treatment of hazardous
waste.
The work of this Committee was required in addition to the
Technical Advisory Committee report for two reasons. First, at
the time the Technical Advisory Committee Report was prepared,
the ENSCO facility was scheduled to be fUlly operational by 1991.
This, of course, is not the case and consequently, the means by
which Arizona meets its CAP obligations have changed
dramatically. Second, the data used by the Technical Advisory
Committee was out-dated 1987 information. This report is being
prepared two years later and thus, this Committee has more
historical data on Arizona's generation, treatment and disposal
of hazardous waste streams. The Committee has attempted to use
that additional information to provide a more complete picture of
the production and disposal trends associated with Arizona­generated
hazardous waste.
However; this report also suffers from several serious
shortcomings. Among other things, HB 2121 provided that a three­member
Scientific Panel evaluate and report to the Committee on
hazardous waste treatment and disposal technologies. The
Committee requested that the Scientific Panel provide an array of
information regarding both human and environmental health and
economic factors associated with existing and developing
technologies as part of their reports (see Attachments 2 and 7).
The Panel provided a list of EPA-approved technologies, but
failed to provide the Committee with any scientific evaluation of
18
these technologies and provided no information on innovative/new
technologies (see Attachments 3 and 4). The Committee believes
this information is essential to an analysis of the state's
disposal options. In addition, the Committee waS unable to
fulfill its task of determining the potential reduction of
hazardous waste generation due to the implementation of pollution
prevention programs by hazardous waste generators because
Arizona's newly-implemented program (set forth in HB 2121) has
not yet provided sufficient data. Thus, the Committee is unable
to report and make recommendations on two of the four tasks
assigned to it pursuant to HB 2121.
Nevertheless, the Committee has endeavored to provide an
accurate, thorough and useful analysis of the generation,
treatment and disposal of the state's hazardous waste streams.
The Committee has identified the make-up of Arizona's hazardous
waste streams, who produces it and where it is produced in the
state. It has also identified the amounts imported to and
exported from this state. The Committee has also considered the
possible ramifications of SB 1053 passed in 1992 (concerning
potential constitutional takings by state action) on the state's
efforts to restrict operations at a hazardous waste facility
whether pUblicly or privately owned. And finally, the Committee
has made recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature
about the next steps to be taken to determine how Arizona should
manage its long-term hazardous waste needs.
19
Chapter II. Arizona's Hazardous Waste capacity Assurance
Obligations
As previously mentioned in Chapter I, under the 1986
amendments to CERCLA, each state is required to prepare a CAP
which shows that the state has adequate capacity to properly
manage all hazardous waste reasonably anticipated to be generated
(after application of pollution prevention techniques) within the
state for the next 20 years. The first CAP was required to be
filed in 1989 and biennially thereafter. EPA has the authority
to withhold federal Superfund monies for remediating contaminated
sites in those states that do not have an approved CAP (CERCLA,
Section 104(c) (9».
EPA evaluates a state's CAP based upon the magnitude of
hazardous waste generated in the state and the availability of
in-state treatment and disposal facilities. In order to
demonstrate adequate capacity, a state can do one or more of the
following: .
(1) reduce or eliminate the amount of hazardous waste it
generates;
(2) plan for the creation and permitting of hazardous waste
capacity; and/or
(3) enter into interstate or regional hazardous waste
management agreements to assure the availability of
out-of-state facilities.
EPA, Assurance of Hazardous Waste Capacity: Guidance to
state Officials, December 1988.
Arizona's 1989 CAP was approved by EPA assuming ENSCO's
hazardous waste facility would be operational by 1991. The CAP
20
was amended in 1991 to reflect the state's purchase and closure
of the ENSCO facility as well as Arizona's participation in the
Agreement (See Appendix DO). On February 14, 1992, ADEQ
submitted a second CAP to EPA on beha·lf of the state (see
Appendix Q). The 1992 CAP satisfies the requirements EPA placed
on the 1989 CAP and updates Arizona's management capacity needs
based upon: (1) the state's newly-implemented pollution
prevention program (A.R.S. § 49-961 et seq.) which qualifies
Arizona for the nationa+ly projected 10% reduction of hazardous
wastes to be accorded each state by EPA without documentation;
and (2) Arizona's participation in the Western States Regional
Agreement as of February 1992.
These steps alone do not assure Arizona's lonq-term
compliance with its CAP requirements. Arizona's participation in
the Agreement is dependent upon the other Western States having
disposal capacity which exceeds their needs in the management
categories set forth in the CAP and the willingness of other
Western States to permit Arizona to participate in the Agreement.
The Aqreement states that each member state and the federal
qovernment have the responsibility to attempt to manaqe its in­state
qeneration of hazardous waste within its own jurisdiction.
Western States "do not desire to be major exporters or importers
of waste, or to support the location of existing or emerging
treatment, storage and disposal (TSO) facilities that favor
unreasonably significant interstate movement of waste" (see
Appendix DD). By participating in the Agreement, each Western
21
state has pledged to "review any practices that may discourage
generators from managing waste within the state, or that may
encourage export of those wastes to facilities in other states."
Western states believe that each state "should maximize the in­state
management of waste by appropriate minimization of waste
generation and by development of appropriate in-state capacity
where needed and economically and environmentally viable" (see
Appendix DD).
Thus, as a condition of joining the Agreement, the Western
states requested that Arizona re-examine its statutes that (1)
ban importation of all types of hazardous waste to state-owned
facilities, and (2) ban incineration of hazardous waste at state­owned
facilities (A.R.S. S 49-903 (C) and (D». The work of this
Committee is part of that re-examination. The Western states
believe it is inequitable for Arizona to ship its hazardous waste
to them while banning imported hazardous waste to its state-owned
facilities. This objection persists because Arizona has no
public or private commercial hazardous waste disposal capacity.
For purposes of equity, Arizona should receive CAP
credit for its exempt recyclers accepting federally defined
hazardous wastes. In addition, Arizona should receive credit
from the states in the Agreement for accepting wastes classified
as hazardous in the state of origin (i.e., sludges and asbestos
from California). This credit could be significant if EPA were
to give clear guidance that recycling federally defined hazardous
22
waste and treatment/disposal of state-defined hazardous waste
would count toward a state's capacity (see Attachments 8 and 9).
The issue of Arizona's status in the Agreement is likely to
be raised while ADEQ is preparing the next CAP submittal which is
due in October, 1993. The next WGA meeting is in March of 1993
and the other members to the Agreement are awaiting the outcome
of this Committee report and any legislative action that may
result from its recommendations to determine the need to
reevaluate Arizona's membership in the Agreement.
In summary, the state currently faces the legal and moral
challenge of developing a long-term plan to assure Arizona's
ability to manage its current and future generation of hazardous
waste.
23
Chapter III.
Backqround
Arizona's Hazardous Waste stream
In-state Generation/Importation/Exportation
In order to make recommendations on Arizona's needs for
hazardous waste treatment and disposal it is imperative that we
understand the state's current hazardous waste stream. That
stream consists of wastes qenerated in Arizona as well as wastes
imported into the state. 1 Moreover, to understand what our
treatment and disposal needs are we must also know how much of
that waste is being exported to out-of-state treatment and
disposal facilities. This chapter will present available data
which portrays that waste stream.
Hazardous waste consists of various discarded materials
often generated in industrial processes that pose or potentially
pose a substantial risk to human health or the environment.
Hazardous waste is regulated under the federal Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901, et seq.
The EPA has authorized Arizona through the ADEQ to administer and
enforce these regulations. With limited exceptions, ADEQ has
adopted the federal hazardous waste rules by reference (A.C.C.
R18-901 et seq.). Wastes that are considered to be -hazardous"
are sUbject to federal and state regulations governing its
handling, storage, treatment and disposal.
lFor CAP purposes, Arizona is only responsible for hazardous
wastes generated within its borders.
24
Reportinq Requirements
ADEQ tracks hazardous waste through two documents, the
Facility Annual Reports (FARS) and the hazardous waste manifests.
The FARs must be filed by all Large Quantity Generators (LQGs),
(i.e., businesses that generate at least 1000 kilograms (2,200
pounds) of hazardous waste in any given month). The FARs
describe the activities that generate the hazardous waste, the
type of waste, the quantity of waste and the location and
technology used by the generator to dispose of the waste. For
purposes of providing information for this report, ADEQ analyzed
the 1990 FARs.
The hazardous waste manifest is a federally mandated
document that records the amount and type of hazardous waste
shipped off site to storage, treatment and disposal facilities.
Manifests are required to be filed with ADEQ by all generators
that produce hazardous waste in amounts in excess of 100
kilograms (220 pounds) in any given month (A.A.C. R18-8-262.G).
For the purposes of this report, ADEQ analyzed the 1990 manifests
for all Small Quantity Generators (SQGs), businesses that
generated 100 - 1000 kilograms in anyone month.
It is important to note that entities which generate less
than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste in any given month are not
required to fill out manifests or file FARs. Known as
Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators (CESQGs), these
small businesses are, for the most part, exempt from the
hazardous waste laws; there is no readily available information
25
concerning the types and quantities of hazardous waste they
generate. In 1990, 538 CESQGs reported to ADEQ that they handled
hazardous wastes. However, these generators are not required to
report how much or what type of hazardous waste they generate.
In addition, the federal and state laws do not require
reporting on household hazardous waste. However, based upon some
preliminary 1991 and 1992 information from cities in Arizona and
national research on programs to collect such wastes, we are able
to present a guesstimate on Arizona's household hazardous waste
stream.
Arizona-Generated Waste
In 1990 there were 251 LQGS in Arizona that qenerated a
total of 100,814,244 pounds (50,407 tons) of hazardous waste and
341 SQGs that qenerated 2,053,312 pounds (1,026 tons) of
hazardous waste for a total of 102,867,056 pounds (51,433 tons)
of hazardous waste (see Appendix A).
Of the hazardous waste generated in 1990, one-quarter or
28,326,000 pounds (14,163 tons) were noone-time waste." One-time
waste is generated as a result of a site cleanup or corrective
action taken in response to a hazardous material spill or
release. We can anticipate that one-time waste will be generated
every year due to federal and state superfund cleanups and RCRA
corrective actions. The volume and type of this one-time waste
will fluctuate and is unpredictable. For example, in the October
1990 Report, ADEQ projected a 1989 one-time generation of 200
26
tons (400,000 pounds) of hazardous waste. The actual 1989 data,
which became available after the Report was pUblished, showed
that in 1989 one company, Miller oelinting, generated 1,659 tons
(33,188,000 pounds) of one-time waste from cleaning up on-site
contamination. In 1990, this same company generated 14,163 tons
(28,326,000 pounds) of hazardous waste due to continuing on-site
cleanup activities. In 1991 Miller Oelinting generated no
hazardous waste, having completed the cleanup of its site.
However, in 1991 there were 6,497,000 pounds (3,248 tons) of one-time
hazardous waste (mostly hazardous waste contaminated soils)
generated by other companies (AOEQ, 1991).
Ninety-six percent of Arizona's total hazardous waste stream
in 1990 consisted of the following twelve wastes(see Appendix C):
=================================================================
WASTE CODE
AMOUNT/LBS.
DESCRIPTION OF WASTE
=================================================================
0001
0002
0006
0007
0008
0018
0039
FOOl
Ignitable waste (capable of causing
fire, i.e., used oil, spent solvent)
corrosive waste (corrodes st~el i.e.,
acidic wastes, pickle liquor used
to clean steel in manufacturing processes
Cadmium waste
Chromium waste
Lead waste
Benzene waste
Tetrachloroethylene (TCE) waste
Spent halogenated solvents used in
degreasing
27
7,186,648
38,306,177
2,219,883
4,510,218
3,290,751
1,212,594
1,446,613
4,216,089
F002
F003
F005
F006
Spent halogenated solvents (i.e.,
tetrachloroethylene)
Spent non-halogenated solvents (i.e.,
xylene)
Spent non-halogenated solvents
(i. e., toluene)
Sludge from electroplating operations
TOTAL
3,192,064
3,715,759
1,530,727
27,805,248
98,632,363
Arizona's manifested hazardous waste stream was generated by
592 generators but the majority of the waste (60%) was generated
by 44 generators (See Appendix D). Each generator is identified
with an EPA identification number by geographic location.
Several of the 44 largest generators are owned by the same
company. ThUS, while there are 44 generators, they are owned by
36 companies. These companies represent a variety of industries
that can be described by general categories (see Table 1). For
example, five waste handling companies generated 36,413,295
pounds, or 18,206 tons, of hazardous waste in 1990. This
represents 49% of all recurrent hazardous waste generated in
1990, making this industry potentially the largest generator of
hazardous waste in Arizona. 2 Ten electronic manufacturers were
also in the top 44, making electric manufacturing the second
largest generator of hazardous waste in the state. These two
2 It is unclear, however, how much of this waste is "double
counted." In other words, we do not know how much waste is from a
primary generator that has been picked up by the waste handler and
is now being counted again under the waste handler's manifest. The
new FAR reporting format currently being utilized by ADEQ will
provide information to clarify this issue.
28
DISTRIBUTION OF THE 12 LARGEST RCRA WASTE CATEGORIES
IN ARIZONA BY THE 44 LARGEST GENERATORS - IN POUNDS
TABLE 1
TABLE 1-0ISTRIBUTION OF THE 12 LARGEST RCRA WASTE CATEGORIES IN ARIZONA BY THE 44 LARGEST GENERATORS
*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
EPAIO COMPANY NAME 0001 0002 0006 0007 0008 0018 0039 F001 F002 F003 F005 F006 OTHER TOTALS
*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
AZD980818330 NELCO TECHNOLOGY 35,718 1,764,830 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35,718 0 79,315 0 1,915,581
AZD043848050 MOTOROLA, INC 215,859 56,042 50 0 1,250 0 0 7,470 50,854 214,094 2,050 0 259,884 807,553
AZD008399636 MOTOROLA, INC. 12,186 20,423 10 0 13 0 0 74,381 1,584 28,840 0 137,640 465 275,542
AZD982519746 3M TUCSON DATA STORAGE 73,854 0 0 453,682 0 0 0 0 0 45,753 17,154 0 17,156 607,599
AZD980735179 NORPLEX OAK INC/ALLIED 0 17,188 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 385,439 402,627
AZD981579634 QUALITY PRINTED CIRCUIT 252,398 2,518 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100,600 2 355,518
AZDOO9004177 MOTOROLA, INC. 207,100 9,504 0 9,785 17,267 0 0 233,733 668 376,902 237,656 23,640 141,087 1,257,342
AZD980896310 CONTINENAL CIRCUITS COR 11,475 1,857,335 0 0 7,282 0 0 0 0 0 0 315,340 5,564 2,196,996
AZD091235457 INTEL CORP PHX CAMPUS 191,220 3,715 0 2,035 740 0 0 0 0 10,120 0 76,050 4,525 288,405
AZD982503385 DYNACO WEST CORP 800 85,168 0 0 52,993 0 0 433 579 800 0 164,120 961 305,854
AZT000623819 DIGITAL EQUIP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,086 156 156 336,162 0 342,560
AZD981371628 CIRCUIT TECHNOLOGY INC 0 234,400 0 0 26,240 0 0 0 0 0 0 121,740 1,400 383,780
AZD063274609 CONTINENTAL CIRCUITS 38,260 533,061 0 0 40,153 0 0 0 0 42 3n 261,240 1,583 874,711
.••.•..•. _----_ ....... _-------------- ... _---- .. ----------------------.-------------.----------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRONIC MFG: 1,038,8704,584,184 60 465,502 145,938 0 0 316,017 59,771 712,425 ·257,388 1,615,847 818,066 10,014,068
--------------.--------_.-------------------------_._.----------------_._----.-_.---------------------------------------------_-------._._.--------------------------------------
AZD089308803 SAFETY KLEEN CORP 803,063 0 31,293 15,860 17,483 785,318 803,459 0 60,674 9,758 9,758 0 436,967 2,973,633
AZD980892897 SAFETY KLEEN CORP 300,470 0 4,381 2,941 2,789 300,714 302,063 0 . 21,380 0 0 0 4,474 939,212
AZD049318009 RECYCLING RESOURCES, INC 593,288 116,983 0 387,348 123,606 150 392,384 347,713 276,535 212,096 195,299 0 340,789 2,986,191
AZD009015389 ROMIC 1,184,2892,383,961 31,389 90,298 31,639 0 0 931,226 1,145,334 753,198 125,058 1,309 901,779 7,579,480
AZD089304216 VAN WATERS &ROGERS 6,032 4,049 0 0 0 0 557 0 23,086 6,287 5,730 0 263,838 309,579
AZD980735500 WORLD RESOURCES CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 21,625,200 o 21,625,200
---------_.-._------------------------------------------------------------------------------_ .. ------------.-.--_._--.--_ .••..•••....•........
WASTE HANDLER: 2,887,142 2,504,993 67,063 496,447 175,5171,086,182 1,498,463 1,278,939 1,527,009 981,339 335,84521,626,509 1,947,84736,413,295
AZD097113856 LAMDBA ELECTRONiCS OIV 10,250 155,600 0 154,950 1,750 0 0 13,500 0 0 0 28,500 0 364,550
AZD008398505 CHEM RESEARCH CO 0 0 0 273,640 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,200 0 280,840
AZT050010636 GILBERT ENGINEERING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,476 0 0 0 248,990 0 263,466
AZD981425010 TALLEY DEFENSE SYS 1,242 69 156,273 65 95 0 0 23,695 504 477 0 0 21,246 203,666
......•.•....................................................................................................................................
FABRICATED METAL IND.: 11,492 155,669 156,273 428,655 1,845 0 0 51,671 504 477 0 284,690 21,246 1,112,522
~ ..••.•...••.•.....•..•.....•••.•.••...•.•••••.....•.• .•••....••••.•.....•.•••.....•.•.•.•.....••• _............. _.-_ ............•..........•... _.... _._ .. _... __ ......... _.... _....
AZDOO9OO4961 HONEYWELL, INC.
AZT000624445 HONEYWELL-CHANDLER
21,892 nO,046
o 170,716
oo
oo
o
o
oo
o 210,418
o 2,000
o
1,000
52,507
2,000
16,224 1,144,620
o 160,320
o 2,165,707
154 336,190
................• - _ _ __ .. _ - -_ ~._ ....•...•-.. _.. _ _ - .. _..•................... _._-
NAVIGATION PRODUCT: 21,892 890,762 o o o o o 212,418 . 1,000 54,507 16,224 1,304,940 154 2,501,897
........• -.. _._ -.-._ _.- .. _ --- _.. _ __ .. _---._-_ -_.-.-._ _--_ .. -_.- _ -_ _--_._ .. _- -._ _.. __ .. _._-_ __ ._._ -.. __ _ .
AZD982471062 TRW SAFETY SYSTEMS 9 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 323,517 323,623
AZ0018517698 GARRETT PNEUMATIC SYS 23,443 1,326 0 2,701 260 0 0 .61,297 260 3,439 137,948 1,875 105,076 337,625
AZDOO9000050 GARRETT ENGINE DIV 17,701 350 400 1,027 4,650 0 0 448,100 350 91,302 92,102 263,974 186,1n 1,106,128
........ ----_ ..... _..... __ ..... _--. __ ._-- ...... -... _-- .. --_ .. __ ._ .. _- .. __ ._._-------------_ ... _... _._ ..... _--_ .... _--_ .. _... -.-. __ . __ .- .. _-_ ..
TRANSPORTATION EQUIP.: 41,153 1,765. 400 3,n8 4,910 0 0 509,397 610 94,749 230,050 265,849 614,765 1,767,376
.. _._._--- __ ._-_ .. __ __ -._.- __ .. __ .. -_.-._--_ .. _._-_._-_ __ .. _._ -.. _.. -- - _._ .. _--_._ __ --_ __ __ ._ __ ._.. _ _ _.. _._ .. __ .
AZT000611426 CAPITAL CASTING-CHANDLE 0 0 950,760 0 950,760 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,901,520
AZD000625715 GOULD INC FOIL DIV 0 34,430 8,850 14,002 42,230 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,313,007 11,350 1,423,869
AZD982435484 NATIONAL AIRCRAFT, INC. 0 0 549,180 0 549,180 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,098,360
AZD085453603 CAPITAL CASTINGS INC 0 0 110,340 0 110,340 ·0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 220,680 ._----_ .. -_ .. _. __ . __ ... _-------._--_._--_ ....... _- .. _._ .. -. __ .- .. _---_ .. __ .. __ ... _----_ .. __ .. __ ... - .. -_ .. _.----_ ... _._.------- ..... _--_ .... _..
PRIMARY METAL MFG: ' 0 34,430 1,619,130 14,002 1,652,510 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,313,007 11,350 4,644,4209
.. __ . __ ._ .. _----_._- _._.- _.. _-_ _--_ ---_ _-_ __ . __ ._-_._ .. _ -._----- __ .. _----_ .. __ _---_._ -....•..... - .. __ ._-_ -_ -._----_ _ -
January 6, 1993
TABLE 1 • DISTRIBUTION OF THE 12 LARGEST RCRA WASTE CATEGORIES IN ARIZONA BY THE 44 LARGEST GENERATORS
t*****************************************************.********************.******••*********************•••*********************************************************************
EPAID COMPANY NAME D001 0002 0006 0007 0008 0018 0039 F001 F002 F003 F005 F006 OTHER TOTALS
-**********************************************••******************.*************************************************************************************************************
_. e_._. . .·_. __ ------------_.----------------------------------------._---------------- •... _--. . _
'Z4572190029 LUKE WASTE ANNEX 41,927 2,655 13,505 11,188 196,908 0 0 363 814 55,731 44,448 0 2,816 370,355
'Z8170024493 MARINE CORPS AIR STA 132,544 134,890 21 162,708 50 0 0 170,934 950 13 1,034 0 53,144 656,288
"Z7570028582 WI LLIAMS AFB 52,037 43,700 93,451 26,752 91,069 0 0 1,245 6,489 298 2,923 0 82 318,046
"Z0570024133 LUKE AFB 47,971 1,356 10,236 6,491 238,188 0 0 363 814 55,615 43,837 0 5,462 410,333
-------------------------------------------------.---------------------.---------------------------._-------- .... _-----------------------------
MILITARY FACILITIES: 274,479 182,601 117,213 207,139 526,215 0 0 172,905 9,067 111,657 92,242 0 61,504 1,755,022
------------------------_.----._-----------_.-------------.----------.--------------_.----------.-------------------------------------_ .. _-----._--_ .... -. __ .--------------------
"Z0074452426 SRP NAVAJO GEN STA
"ZT000624429 APS/PALO VERDE NUCLEAR
PUBLIC UTILITY:
2,098 633 547 413,362 3,063 1,236 0 5,367 5,037 18,1n 2,922 0 405,998 858,440
12,224 4,655 15,507 10,539 14,827 3,436 0 18,470 18,010 6,904 6,374 0 115,744 226,690
-------------.---------------------------------------------------------_._----------------._._---------------._-----.-------------.-----------
14,322 5,288 16,054 423,901 17,890 4,672 0 23,837 23,047 25,081 9,296 0 521,742 1,085,130
'Z0008394397 AZ PORTLAND CEMENT CO 2,580 0 0 988,200 0 0 0 0 1,500 0 0 0 0 992,280
"ZT000617548 TEXACO INC 0 0 0 658,729 60,219 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 718,948
"Z0003987997 HEXAL CORP 85,864 2,655 0 15,750 0 0 0 0 70,999 67,564 67,564 0 37,999 348,395
"Z0982041907 HEXCEL ADVANCED P,OO FA 68,589 1,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 43,001 73,844 52,245 0 0 238,878
"Z0009005422 DARLING RE CO. 93,826 70,183 1,700 3,390 28,383 0 0 1n,764 19,488 16,209 13,228 129,908 125,467 679,546
"ZD042018689 ROGERS CORP-CIG 37,462 145,859 0 113,235 151,295 0 0 22,296 6,1n 34,500 31,532 109,969 25,813 678,138 .... -_ .. _... -... -_. __ ._-_.---- ........ --- .. _.. ---_ .. _- .. _-_._---------_._-------_.----------_.-._-.-- .. ------_ .. _. __ ._---_ .... _._----_ ... _----
OTHERS: 288,321 219,897 1,700 1,779,304 239,897 0 0 200,060 141,165 192,117 164,569 239,8n 189,279 3,656,185
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••::=a•••=:::=:=_::=:
TOTAL FOR 44 LOGS: 4,577,671 8,579,589 1,977,893 3,818,678 2,764,722 1,090,854 1,498,463 2,765,244 1,762,173 2,172,352 1,105,61426,650,7194,185,95362,949,924
•••••••••••••s:••••••: •���••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••:.::=:••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••======.=====.==•••:2.=•••••••••••:=:.======.=====.================
January 6, 1993
industries produced 74% of the hazardous waste generated by the
44 LQGs. The wastes produced by the waste handlers and
electronic manufacturers were mostly corrosive wastes, sludge
from metal plating operators and ignitable wastes.
The remaining companies in the top 44 that generated
hazardous waste can be categorized as follows (see Appendices B
and D):
Three primary metal manufacturers, such as steel foundries,
generated pickle liquor and sludge with metal contaminates
(4,644,429 pounds or 2,322 tons);
One company at two facilities that manufacture navigation
products that generated mostly corrosive wastes and spent
solvents (2,501,897 pounds or 1,250 tons);
Three companies in the transportation equipment industry
produced degreasing solvents, metals and sludges (2,446,922
pounds or 1,223 tons);
Three military facilities generating all types of wastes
(1,755,021 pounds or 877 tons);
Four manufacturers of fabricated metals generated degreasing
solvents, electroplating wastes and sludge contaminated with
metals and cyanides (1,112,522 pounds or 556 tons);
Two electric services facilities generated chromium, lead
and ignitable wastes (1,085,130 pounds or 542 tons);
One cement company generated chromium waste (922,280 pounds
or 461 tons);
One petroleum bulk station generated chromium and lead
wastes (718,948 pounds or 359 tons);
One plastics products manufacturer generated ignitable,
corrosive, cadmium and lead wastes (678,138 pounds or 339
tons);
One miscellaneous manufacturing company generated ignitable
wastes (348,395 pounds or 174 tons); and
31
One coated fabrics facility generated ignitable, corrosive
and chromium wastes (2,38,878 pounds or 119 tons).
Not surprisingly, Arizona's hazardous waste generators are
concentrated in its two largest counties: 65% of LQGs and 74% of
SQGs are located in Maricopa County, while 17% of the LQGs and
15% of the SQGs are in Pima County (see Map 1 and Appendix A).
Of the top 44 companies, all but three are located in Maricopa or
Pima Counties (see Map 2 and Legend).
Household Hazardous Waste
As mentioned above, household hazardous waste (HHW) is a
component of the state's hazardous waste stream. Available data
shows that in 1991 and 1992, 415,802 pounds (2,079 tons) of HHW
were collected by the cities of Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe
and Tucson (see Appendices E and Z). HHW generally consists of
the following: paint with hazardous waste constituents; oil;
anti-freeze; and batteries. 52% of the volume of the HHW
collected was classified as RCRA hazardous waste and managed by
various technologies (i.e., recycling, fuel substitution,
neutralization processes).
The data above regarding HHW are estimates by Mesa, Phoenix,
Scottsdale and Tempe based on one-time collection events in 1991.
Tucson data is based upon collections at its HHW facility for the
year 1991-1992. Local collection data vary from city to city.
For example, the city of Phoenix estimated that each household
generated just under 30 pounds per year while the city of Tucson
32
MAPl
i';~mber of LQG and Volume of Hazardous Waste Generated by County
1990
APACHE
3 LCG
202,307 p:url;
(101 tons)
COCHISE
5 LCG
278,072 pounds
(139 tons)
F
NAVAJO
3 u;:x:;
77,149 JDJIE
(38 tons)
SANTA
CRUZ
GILA
2 UX;
\ 142,427 pounds
r----..:.. (71 tons)
PIKA
42 u.:x;
6,919,138 pounds
3,459 tons)
7 UX; (*)
PINAL
2~.53Q,489.poUnds
(14,765 tOns)
AARICOPA
163 LCG
60,985,373 ~
(30,493 to )'----......
COCONINO
8 LCG
1,238,408. pounds
~ (619 tons)
~
YAVAPAI
4 LCG
229,762 pounds
(115 tons)
lA PAZ
1 LCG
4 ,109 pY.mds
(2 tnr'-s)
11----1
YlJJ--1A.
7 UX;
996,790 pounds
(4.98 tons)
MOHAVE
4 LCG
141,4.55 pounds
(70 tons)
T) 28,864,017 pounds (14,432 tons)
of this an:JUI1t was a -one-tine- leSte.
2 u;:x:;
68,866 pounds
(34 tons)
MAP 2
Distribution of the Largest 44 Generators by County
1990
o
- I
GRAHAX
COCHISE
NAVAJO
GILA
SANTA
CRUZ
f)-CD
PIMA
COCONINO
CD
PINAL
0-0
KARICOPA
APACHE
YAVAPAI
~
j
LA PAZ
YUMA
·MOHAVE
• See Legend
following this
map for facility names
corresponding to the numbers above.
J(
/\
MAP2 LEGEND
1990
44 LARGE QUANTITY GENERATORS --*****------------*...** •••••• - •••••••• _*--._.*.-..-.-*--*._.*---*--_._.**-*-*-_._.-.
NO EPAID COMPANY NAKE CITY COUNTY POUNDS TONS --*-*-******--*._-----*_._.._--_._._--_ _---_.-.---**--*----*--_._.---*--**._--*
1 AZD0744S2426 SRP NAVAJO GEN STA
2 AZT000611426 CAPITAL CASTING-CHANDLER
3 AZD00062S715 GOULD INC FOIL DIV
4 AZD982041907 HEXCEL ADVANCED PROD FAC
5 AZT00062444S HONEYWELL-CHANDLER
6 AZD0912354S7 INTEL CORP PHX CAMPUS
7 AZD98073S179 NORPLEX OAK INC/ALLIED
8 AZD042018689 ROGERS CORP-CIG
9 AZD00901S389 ROMIC
10 AZT050010636 GILBERT ENGINEERING
11 AZ4572190029 LUKE WASTE ANNEX
12 AZ0570024133 LUKE AFB
13 AZD043848050 MOTOROLA, INC
14 AZD981425010 TALLEY DEFENSE SYS
15 AZD982471062 TRW SAFETY SYSTEMS
16 AZD008398505 CHEM RESEARCH CO
17 AZD981371628 CIRCUIT TECHNOLOGY INC
18 AZD980896310 CONTlNENAL CIRCUITS CORP
19 AZD063274609 CONTINENTAL CIRCUITS
20 AZD009000050 GARRETT ENGINE DIV
21 AZD009004961 HONEYWELL, INC.
22 AZD009004177 MOTOROLA, INC.
23 AZD981579634 OOALITY PRINTED CIRCUITS
24 AZD049318009 RECYCLING RESOURCES, INC
25 AZD089308803 SAFETY KLEEN CORP
26 AZDOS9304216 VAN WATERS & ROGERS
27 AZD980735500 WORLD RESOURCES CO
28 AZD008399636 MOTOROLA, INC.
29 AZDOS5453603 CAPITAL CASTINGS INC
30 AZT000623819 DIGITAL EOOIP
31 AZD9S2503385 DYNACO WEST CORP
32 AZD018517698 GARRETT PNEUMATIC SYS
33 AZD980818330 NELCO TECHNOLOGY
34 AZ757002S5S2 WILLIAMS AFB
35 AZT000624429 APS/PALO VERDE NUCLEAR
36 AZDOOS394397 AZ PORTLAND CEMENT CO
37 AZD~C2:19746 3M TUCSON DATA STORAGE
38 AZD009005422 DARLING RE CO.
39 AZD0971138S6 LAMeBA ELECTRONICS DIV
40 AZD9S2435484 NATIONAL AIRCRAFT, INC.
41 AZD980892897 SAFETY ~EEN CORP
42 AZT000617548 TEXACO INC
43 AZD003987997 HEXAL CORP
44 AZ8170024493 MARINE CORPS AIR STA
PAGE
CHANDLER
CHANDLER
CHANDLER
CHANDLER
CHANDLER
CHANDLER
CHANDLER
CHANDLER
GLENDALE
GLENDALE
LUKE AFB
MESA
MESA
MESA
PHX
PHX
PHX
PHX
PHX
PHX
PBX
PBX
PBX
PHX
PBX
PBX
SCOTTSDALE
TEMPE
TEMPE
TEMPE
TEMPE
TEMPE
WILLIAMS AFB
WINTERSBURG
RILLITO
TUCSON
TUCSON
TUCSON
TUCSON
TUCSON
TUCSON
CASA GRANDE
YUMA
COCONINO
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
PIMA
PIMA
PIMA
PIMA
PIMA
PIMA
PIMA
PINAL
YUMA
858,440
1,901,520
1,423,869
238,878
336,190
288,405
402,627
678,138
7,579,480
263,466
370,355
410,333
807,553
203,666
323,623
280,840
383,780
2,196,996
874,711
1,106,128
2,165,707
1,257,342
355,518
2,986,191
2,973,633
309,579
21,625,200
275,542
220,680
342,560
305,854
337,625
1,915,581
318,046
226,690
992,280
607,599
679,546
364,550
1,098,360
939,212
718,948
348,395
656,288
429
951
712
119
168
144
201
339
3,790
132
185
205
404
102
162
140
192
1,098
437
553
1,083
629
178
1,493
1,487
155
10,813
138
110
171
153
169
958
159
113
496
304
340
182
549
470
359
174
328
information indicates that each household generated 12 pounds per
year. Nationally, estimates vary from 15 to 20 pounds per
household per year. In addition to these variances, it is
unknown if the HHW collected in one day by the City of Phoenix
had been "stored" for longer than two years, or if the city of
Tucson's estimates reflect the actual annual contribution of
households to its program. Given these considerations, it is
only possible to estimate the volume of HHW generated in Arizona
as ranging from 16,042,840 pounds (8,021 tons) to 40,230,000
pounds (20,115 tons).
This limited analysis of HHW suggests that such waste may
significantly increase the amount of hazardous waste generated in
Arizona. Due to the lack of data regarding HHW, however, further
analysis is needed to better understand its true impact on the
state's hazardous waste stream.
Imports
In addition to the hazardous waste generated in Arizona, the
state's hazardous waste stream includes a significant amount of
hazardous waste imported from other states. In 1990, Arizona
accepted 38,902,624 pounds (19,451 tons) of hazardous waste from
out of state. (This does not include state-defined hazardous
waste such as sludge from California for which ADEQ has no
records). These wastes were received by two companies, World
Resources and Cyprus Miami" (see Appendix H). Both facilities are
presently deemed "exempt" recyclers under federal hazardous waste
36
laws. In other words, these facilities receive hazardous waste
under manifest and process it to recover valuable materials. The
recycling process itself is exempt from the hazardous waste
permitting requirements for treatment. While exempt from the
RCRA treatment permit requirements, both facilities are subject
to all other air, water and solid waste regulations and permits.
Both facilities primarily receive wastewater treatment
sludges from electroplating operations (F006). These wastes
contain varying percentages of precious metals such as gold and
silver. The wastes are received from 23 states, including
Arizona, with 63% of the total coming from companies in
California (see Table 2).
37
Table 2
Amount of Hazardous Waste Received by
Two Major Recyclers, by state of Origin
1990
=================================================================
ORIGIN WORLD RESOURCES CYPRUS MIAMI TOTAL POUNDS PCT
=================================================================
CA
AZ
OR
CO
PR
UT
WA
MN
TX
WI
OH
MO
NE
AL
IA
10
AR
NY
MS
NV
IL
TN
OK
17,597,720
4,530,880
1,383,180
1,008,380
1,083,720
908,080
920,140
575,280
155,360
417,940
388,500
203,680
337,480
278,040
169,240
o
132,220
72,240
67,520
61,660
43,200
o
22,900
6,816,769
418,475
o
162,720
o
99,440
o
249,250
337,101
oo
156,640
oo
65,835
199,720
ooo
oo
39,314
o
24,414,489
4,949,355
1,383,180
1,171,100
1,083,720
1,007,520
920,140
824,530
492,461
417,940
388,500
360,320
337,480
278,040
235,075
199,720
132,220
72,240
67,520
61,660
43,200
39,314
22,900
62.76
12.72
3.56
3.01
2.79
2.59
2.37
2.12
1.27
1. 07
1. 00
0.93
0.87
0.71
0.60
0.51
0.34
0.19
0.17
0.16
0.11
0.10
0.06
=================================================================
Total 30,357,360 8,545,264 38,902,624 100.00
=================================================================
The hazardous waste shipped to World Resources is blended to
concentrate the precious metals. The material is then shipped to
several out-of-state smelters. Of the 30,357,360 pounds (15,178
tons) received by World Resources in 1990 (see Table 2), the
company shipped 21,625,200 pounds (10,812 tons) of hazardous
waste out-of-state. Of the 21,625,200 pounds (10,812 tons),
17,499,200 pounds (8,749 tons) were shipped to the Phelps Dodge
in New Mexico and the remaining 4,126,000 pounds (2,063 tons)
38
were shipped to Finland. The discrepancy between World
Resources' imports and exports (8,732,160 pounds or 4,366 tons)
may be explained by the fact that the available data is for
calendar year 1990 which would not account for those wastes
imported to the facility in 1990 but exported in 1991.ADEQ is
performing a mass balance to ensure that all wastes imported by
World Resources are properly disposed.
All of the 8,545,264 pounds (4,272 tons) of hazardous waste
shipped to Cyprus Miami were processed through the smelter to
recover the precious metals from the waste.
Exports
Arizona exported 58,410,468 pounds (29,205 tons) of
hazardous waste to 23 states plus Finland and British Columbia
(see Appendix I). The waste is exported by a combination of
individual generators and waste handlers that collect waste from
Arizona generators and export that waste. The total includes the
waste exported by World Resources which accounts for 37% of all
exports. Two states receive more than 50% of Arizona's wastes:
New Mexico (29.96%) and California (23.54%). While shipments to
California were directed to 34 different treatment, storage,
disposal (TSD) facilities, the shipment to New Mexico was
destined to one facility, Phelps Dodge in Hurley. Table 3
provides a list of all states and countries that received
hazardous waste from Arizona and poundage received.
39
Table 3
Quantity of Hazardous Waste Received by state and/or Country
Generated in Arizona
1990
=================================================================
No. Receiving state Amount Received from Arizona
(Pounds) (Pet)
=================================================================
l. New Mexico 17,499,200.00 29.96
2. California 13,751,617.55 23.54
3. Texas 4,993,064.06 8.55
4. FINLAND 4,126,000.00 7.06
5. Kansas 3,244,770.60 5.56
6. New Jersey 3,081,415.00 5.28
7. Utah 3,029,379.10 5.19
8. Nevada 2,715,247.00 4.65
9. Oklahoma 2,507,220.00 4.29
10. Louisiana 1,531,334.00 2.62
1l. Missouri 677,208.00 1.16
12. Illinois 445,786.43 0.76
13. Tennessee 270,999.74 0.46
14. Arkansas 210,544.55 0.36
15. Idaho 170,120.00 0.29
16. Minnesota 53,835.00 0.09
17. Colorado 35,350.00 0.06
18. Florida 26,734.79 0.05
19. Michigan 12,500.00 0.02
20. New York 9,789.00 0.02
2l. Indiana 7,000.00 0.01
22. Pennsylvania 5,550.92 0.01
23. Oregon 3,033.00 0.01
24. Georgia 1,519.16 0.00
25. BRITISH COLUMBIA 1,250.00 0.00
=================================================================
Total 58,410,467.85 100.00
=================================================================
Summary
To understand Arizona's needs for treatment and disposal, it
is important to first identify Arizona's primary or recurrent
waste stream. Based upon 1990 ADEQ data, gross assumptions
concerning HHW and unreported data from "conditionally exempt"
generators (CESQG), we can conclude that hazardous waste
40
generated in Arizona on a recurrent basis (excluding one-time
waste) is as follows:
1) 102,867,056 pounds
-28,326,000 pounds
74,541,056 pounds
Total
One-time
(See Page 26)
(See Page 26)
2) HHW = 16,042,840 pounds (8,021 tons) to 40,230,000
pounds (20,115 tons) (See Page 36)
Ninety-six percent of Arizona's recurrent hazardous waste
stream consists of twelve (12) types (see Table 2). 49% of this
waste stream is generated by five waste handling companies.
However, one company, World Resources, accounts for 29%
(21,625,200 pounds or 10,812 tons) of the recurrent waste stream.
Because World Resources does not generate new hazardous waste in
Arizona (it handles wastes from other companies and ships it out
of state for recovery of precious metals) we can subtract its
amount from the total recurrent waste stream for which Arizona
must have disposal and treatment capacity. Thus, Arizona's
recurrent waste stream is 38,127,761 pounds or 19,063 tons of
which the 43 top generators (see Table 1, eliminating World
Resources from the list) produce 79% (41,324,724 pounds or 20,671
tons).
It should also be emphasized that the estimated volumes of
HHW are based on limited, preliminary data and furthermore, under
current state law, disposing of HHW is prohibited at state-owned
hazardous waste facilities (A.R.S. S49-903 (B».
41
Pinally, it must be noted that without additional research
there is no way to quantify or verify the double counting problem
previously mentioned when calculating waste generated by waste
handlers (other than World Resources) in Arizona. The new PAR
reporting format currently utilized by ADEQ will provide better
information on the double counting issue. Additionally, research
is needed to predict with greater certainty the type and volume
of one-time waste Arizona will generate in the future (see Page
26). While the above information is based on 1990 data and more
current information is necessary to make final predictions, there
is no evidence to suggest that the future composition of
Arizona's waste stream will alter sUbstantially from the present.
42
Chapter xv. Arizona's Xncinerable Hazardous Waste stream
Under HB 2121, the committee was charged with identifying
the amount of Arizona-generated hazardous waste likely to be
incinerated and comparing that amount with Arizona's total waste
stream. Because of federal law and ADEQ reporting requirements,
identifying the amount of hazardous waste actually incinerated,
as opposed to that which could be incinerated, is complicated and
may not be totally accurate.
RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs)
Under RCRA, the EPA established treatment technologies that
must be applied to hazardous waste to limit the waste's toxicity
and volume (see Appendix J). Known as the Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDRs), these regulations mandate the application of
specific technologies (i.e., incineration) to particular wastes
while permitting other wastes to be treated by several
technologies (see Attachment 1).
There were 13,348,329 pounds (6,674 tons) of waste generated
by both LQGs and SQGs that had to be, or optimally could be,
incinerated in Arizona in 1990. Of this amount, Arizona 7 s LQGs
generated only 12,555,736 pounds (6,278 tons) of recurrent
hazardous waste that required incineration, unless the waste was
recycled. This waste stream was generated by just 36 facilities
(see Table 4). Based upon the 1990 FARs we know that 5,761,286
43
1990
TABLE 4 - GENERATION OF INCINERABLE WASTE BY 44 LQG'S
***************************************.*****************************************************************************************************************************
5 TYPES OF OTHER
5 TYPES OF INCINERABLE WASTE
INCINERABLE WASTE LBS OTHER LBS " OF
EPAID COMPANY NAME 0001 F001 F002 F003 F005 WASTE " OF TOTAL WASTE TOTAL TOTALS
*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************
AZDOO9015389 ROMIC 1,184,289 931,226 1,145,334 753,198 125,058 4,139,105 54.61" 3,440,375 41.43% 7,579,480
AZD043848050,AZD008399636,AZDOO9004177 MOTOROLA, INC 435,145 315,584 53,106 619,836 239,706 1,663,377 71.07% 1,304,060 55.n% 2,340,437
AZD049318009 RECYCLING RESOURCES, INC 593,288 347,713 276,535 212,096 195,299 1,624,931 54.41" 1,361,260 45.59% 2,986,191
AZD089308803,AZD980892897 SAFETY KLEEN CORP 1,103,533 0 82,054 9,758 9,758 1,205,103 30.80" 2,307,742 58.98" 3,912,845
AZD009000050,AZD018517698 GARRETT ENGINE DIV 41,144 509,397 610 94,741 230,05U 875,942 60.67% 467,811 32.40" 1,443,753
AZD009005422 DARLING RE CO. 93,826 177,764 19,488 16,209 13,228 320,515 47.17% 359,031 52.83" 679,546
AZD009004961,AZTOO0624445 HONEYWELL, INC. 21,892 212,418 1,000 54,507 16,224 306,041 12.23" 2,195,856 87.m 2,501,897
AZ8170024493 MARINE CORPS AIR STA 132,544 170,934 950 13 1,034 305,475 46.55" 350,813 53.45% 656,288
AZD003987997 HEXAL CORP 85,864 0 70,999 67,564 67,564 291,991 83.81" 56,404 16.19% 348,395
AZ057D024133,AZ4572190029 LUKE AFB 89,898 726 1,628 111,346 88,285 291,883 37.39% 488,805 62.61% 780,688
AZD981579634 QUALITY PRINTED CIRCUIT 252,398 0 0 0 0 252,398 70.m 103,120 29.01% 355,518
AZD982041907 HEXCEL ADVANCED PROD FA 68,589 0 43,001 73,844 52,245 237,679 99.50" 1,199 0.50% 238,878
AZD091235457 INTEL CORP PHX CAMPUS 191,220 0 0 10,120 (l 201,340 69.81" 87,065 30.19% 288,405
AZD982519746 3M TUCSON DATA STORAGE 73,854 0 0 45,753 17,154 136,761 22.51" 470,838 77.49% 607,599
AZD042018689 ROGERS CORP-CIG 37,462 22,296 6,177 34,500 31,532 131,967 19.46" 546,171 80.54" 678,138
AZD980818330 NELCO TECHNOLOGY 35,718 0 0 35,718 0 71,436 3.73" 1,844,145 96.27% 1,915,581
AZ7570028582 WI LLIAMS AFB 52,037 1,245 6,489 298 2,923 62,992 19.81" 255,054 80.19% 318,046
AZTOO0624429 APS/PALO VERDE NUCLEAR 12,224 18,470 18,010 6,904 6,374 61,982 27.34" 164,708 n.66% 226,690
AZD980896310, AZD063274609 CONTI NENTALC IRCU ITS 49,735 0 0 42 372 50,149 1.63" 3,021,558 98.37% 3,071,707
AZD089304216 VAN WATERS &ROGERS 6,032 0 23,086 6,287 5,730 41,135 13.m 268,444 86.71" 309,579
AZ0074452426 SRP NAVAJO GEN STA 2,098 5,367 5,037 18,177 2,922 33,601 3.91" 824,839 96.09% 858,440
AZD981425010 TALLEY DEFENSE SYS 1,242 23,695 504 477 0 25,918 12.73" 177,748 87.27% 203,666
AZD097113856 LAMDBA ELECTRONICS DIV 10,250 13,500 0 0 0 23,750 6.51" 340,800 93.49% 364,550
AZT050010636 GILBERT ENGINEERING 0 14,476 0 0 0 14,476 5.49% 248,990 94.51% 263,466
AZTOO0623819 DIGITAL EQUIP 0 0 6,086 156 156 6,398 1.87% 336,162 98.13% 342,560
AZDOO8394397 AZ PORTLAND CEMENT CO 2,580 0 1,500 0 0 4,080 0.41" 988,200 99.59% 992,280
AZD982503385 DYNACO WEST CORP 800 433 579 800 0 2,612 0.85" 303,242 99.15% 305,854
AZD982471 062 TRW SAFETY SYSTEMS 9 0 0 8 0 17 0.01" 323,606 99.m 323,623
AZTOO0617548 TEXACO INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00" 718,948 100.00" 718,948
AZD982435484 NATIONAL AIRCRAFT, INC. 0 0 0 0 0 a 0.00" 1,098,360 100.00" 1,098,360
AZD085453603,AZTOO0611426 CAPITAL CASTINGS INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00" 2,122,200 100.00" 2,122,200
AZD981371628 CIRCUIT TECHNOLOGY INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00" 383,780 100.00" 383,780
AZD008398505 CHEM RESEARCH CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00" 28Q,840 100.00" 280,840
AZD980735179 NORPLEX OAK INC/ALLIED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00" 402,627 100.00% 402,627
AZD980735500 WORLD RESOURCES CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00" 21,625,200 100.00" 21,625,200
AZDOO0625715 GOULD INC FOIL DIV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00" 1,423,869 100.00% 1,423,869
••••••••: ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••���•••••••••••••••=:=•=.===.=:-:::••::::=:=:=:====
TOTAL FOR 44 LQGS: 4,577,671 2,765,244 1,762,173 2,172,352 1,105,614 12,383,054 19.49% 50,693,870 80.51% 62,949,924
••••••••=:::••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••_::__:::::.:•••=•••••••••••••••••••::=••••••==•••••••••••••••••••••:==:==_:===::==••••-====::::======
\-
pounds (2,880 tons) of the 12,555,736 pounds (6,278 tons) were
recycled. Therefore, in 1990 the amount of hazardous waste
ultimately incinerated by LQGs was approximately 6,794,470 pounds
(3,397 tons) or 6% of Arizona's total hazardous waste stream (see
Chapter III and Appendices B, J and F). ADEQ does not have
comparable data for SQGs.
It is difficult to know whether all of the 6,794,470 pounds
of incinerated hazardous waste was required to be incinerated or
whether some of it could have been recycled. This difficulty
stems from two facts. First, the LDRs distinguish between solid
and liquids based upon the concentration of waste in the material
being disposed. A hazardous waste in solid form (known as "non­wastewater"
in EPA jargon) must be incinerated if it is not
recycled. But if hazardous wastes are in liquid form
("wastewater") one of the other EPA specified technologies can be
applied. For example, isobutanol (FOOl) is "wastewater" or
"liquid" if the waste has isobutanol levels of less than 5.0 mg/L
and is "non-wastewater" or "solid" at levels of 5.0 mg/L or more.
If it is a solid it must be incinerated or recycled. If it is a
liquid, the waste can be recycled, incinerated or sUbjected to
steam stripping, biological treatment or activated carbon.
Second, the FARs and manifests do not provide sufficient detail
to determine concentrations and therefore, ADEQ is unable to
determine whether all the wastes incinerated in 1990 were
mandatory incinerable wastes.
45
Because the Committee does not have access to sUfficiently
detailed information concerning the makeup of Arizona's
incinerable waste stream, it is impossible to predict the amount
of waste likely to be incinerated in the future. What we do know
is that using 1987 data, the October 1990 Report estimated
Arizona's mandatory incinerable hazardous waste stream to be 6%
of the total hazardous waste generated. Using available 1990
data, it appears that the 6% figure has not changed.
While it is difficult to project Arizona's future
incinerable waste stream, we know that it is small when compared
to the available incineration capacity in the Western states. As
of February 1992, there was 103,117 tons per year surplus
capacity to incinerate hazardous waste liquids and 129,710 tons
per year surplus capacity to incinerate hazardous waste solids
(see Appendix DO). Given this surplus capacity in the Western
states, there is no need for additional incineration capacity in
Arizona.
Summary
Using this 6% number, however, is misleading because the
total waste stream includes the potential for "double counting,"
and "one-time waste" (see Chapter III). While we cannot account
for all the double counting problem, we can, by sUbtracting the
one-time waste and the World Resources waste (for which treatment
and disposal in Arizona is not needed), reduce a major portion of
Arizona's recurrent hazardous waste stream as reported in Chapter
46
III. The calculation is appropriate because the one-time waste
mayor may not in any given year, require incineration capacity.
Therefore, using the recurrent waste stream without the one-time
waste, or World Resources, the total of Arizona's waste is
38,127,761 pounds (19,063 tons), making Arizona's 6,794,470
pounds (3,397 tons) of incinerated waste, approximately 8% of the
total recurrent waste stream (see Appendix J). This percentage
suggests that pollution prevention initiatives directed at
incinerable wastes are an appropriate and needed effort.
47
Chapter v. CUrrent Treatment and Disposal Practices
ADEQ records show that 37 facilities in Arizona have
reported accepting hazardous waste (see Map 3 and Appendix K).
Only 24 of these facilities are currently operating. The others
have closed, are being closed, or have a permit but have not yet
been constructed. Of the 24 facilities, only 13 are approved to
receive hazardous waste from off-site. The remaining 11 are
approved to perform on-site treatment/storage only. This data
does not include the exempt recyclers (World Resources, Cyprus
Miami and Romic) that do not require RCRA approval.
Twenty of the approved RCRA facilities are private (i.e.,
available to the owner/operator of the site only). One
commercial metals and solvent recovery facility, Recycling
Resources, has the capacity to manage 20,038,000 pounds (10,019
tons) of waste per year. Three Arizona commercial facilities are
permitted under RCRA to store hazardous waste: Rinchem, Safety
Kleen and Chemical Waste Management. However, not one of the
Arizona facilities is an authorized permanent disposal site for
federally listed hazardous wastes which limits the state's
ability to manage its own waste.
As a result, hazardous waste generated in Arizona today is
managed by a variety of different methods either occurring at the
site of generation or off-site at facilities in Arizona or other
states. Zn 1990, 32% of the .tate'. total hazardous waste stream
48
was treated at the site of generation by 13 companies. Ten
percent was shipped to Arizona's commercial treatment/storage
facilities, several of which were "captive" facilities that treat
waste generated by a facility on or off-site with' the same owner
(meaning the waste is managed by one company from the point of
generation to treatment). The remaining 58% of Arizona-generated
hazardous waste was shipped out-of-state (see Appendix I).
There are three recycling facilities in Arizona that are
exempt from some of the RCRA regulations such as permit and
reporting requirements. The two major recyclers, World Resources
and Cyprus Miami, primarily receive imported waste as opposed to
Arizona-generated waste (see Chapter III). The third recycling
facility, Romic, is under EPA jurisdiction because it is located
on Indian lands. Romic recycled 2,518,054 pounds (1,259 tons) of
Arizona-generated waste in 1990.
Arizona's 13 approved facilities receiving hazardous waste
are listed in Table 5 below by name, volume of waste received
from in-state generators and regulatory status.
50
Table 5
Amount of Hazardous waste Received by Arizona's
13 Approved Facilities from Arizona Generators
=================================================================
USEPAID# Company Name Pounds status
=================================================================
l.AZD980735500
2.AZD009015389
3.AZD980892731
4.AZD060624251
5.AZT050010180
6.AZD089308803
AZD980892897
7.AZD049318009
World Resources
Romic Chemical
Rinchem
Cyprus Miami
Chemical Waste Mgmt
Safety Kleen Phoenix
safety Kleen Tucson
Recycling Resources
4,079,841
2,518,054
1,562,774
641,526
227,693
154,366
55,178
96,451
commer-recycler
commer-recycler
commer-storage
commer-recycler
commer-storage
commer-storage
commer-storage
commer-treat
=======================================================
8.AZ4572190029
9.AZ4570024139
10.AZD020132502
11.AZ4570024055
12.AZD008397069
13.AZD980638290
AZ
Summary
Luke AFB DRMO Annex
Luke AFB Gila Bend
Talley Defense System
Davis Monthan AFB
ITT Cannon
Unidynamics
N/A
365,666
1,732
170,274
35,624
34,000
2,080
68,979
storage
priv-treatment
priv-treatment
priv-treatment
priv-treatment
priv-treatment
n/a
When the above data is viewed in terms of Arizona's
recurrent waste stream of 38,127,761 pounds (or 19,063 tons), it
becomes clear that Arizona's commercial recyclers already manage
approximately 20% of that waste stream. This is significant
because it means that there is an unsatisfied treatment/disposal
need for only aproximately 30,500,000 pounds or 15,250 tons of
hazardous waste. This number may actually include waste that has
been double counted, thereby making the actual recurrent waste
stream somewhat smaller (see footnote 2 on page 27). The
S1
recurrent waste stream is primarily made up of solvents (see
Appendix CC), and a portion of that may be able to undergo
recycling or treatment before undergoing other forms of treatment
and disposal.
52
Chapter VI. Evaluation of the Scientific Panel Report
HB 2121 (Chapter 315, Laws 1991) directed the Committee to
select three scientists from a list provided by the Governor to
study hazardous waste treatment and disposal technologies,
including the effects of incineration and other technologies on
human health and the environment. The Scientific Panel was to
report the results of its study by March 1, 1992 for evaluation
by the Committee. The objective of the Scientific Panel was to
provide Arizona with an independent, objective overview of new
(including experimental) and existing technologies in a format
that the Committee could use to develop recommendations that
address Arizona's hazardous waste needs and concerns.
The Committee anticipated that the Scientific Panel Report
would provide technological information to fill the existing
information gaps and identify the human and environmental health
and economic impacts of various treatment and disposal
technologies. The Scientific Panel was selected by the
committee in December 1991. In January 1992 the Committee
provided recommendations of what the Panel's report should
address (see Attachment 2). By February 1992 the Panel developed
a list of the technologies to be addressed in their report and
submitted this to the Committee for review (see Attachment 3).
The Panel members were:
Mr. Jan Radimsky, Chief
Office of Statewide Planning
California Department of Toxic Substances Control
Sacramento, California
53
Mr. Donald A. Oberacker
Thermal Destruction Branch
Waste Minimization, Destruction & Disposal Research Division
u.s. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio
Dr. steven W. Carothers
SWCA Environmental Consultants
Flagstaff, Arizona
Unfortunately, the Scientific Panel never produced a report
as specified in HB 2121 (Chapter 315, Laws 1991) due to a lack of
resources and other conflicts. In August 1992, Mr. Jan Radimsky
submitted a written response (see Attachment 4) to the committee
with attached materials as follows:
1) A list of wastes with corresponding non-liquid and
liquid best demonstrated available technologies for
treatment (BDAT);
2) A copy of the previously submitted Scientific Panel
Report Outline;
3) The Table of Contents of the Standard Handbook of
Hazardous Wastes Treatment and Disposal (Harry M.
Freeman, Editor, McGraw-Hill, 1989);
4) Copies of eight reports/proceedings issued by the
California Department of Toxic Substances.
The materials provided by the Scientific Panel did not
include any analysis of hazardous waste treatment and disposal
technologies. Consequently, the Committee was unable to fulfill
its charge of evaluating the Scientific Panel Report to identify
specific environmentally sound technologies that would most
likely be utilized by hazardous waste generators in Arizona.
Such analyses are absolutely essential to developing any
54
recommendations of appropriate technologies for Arizona's
hazardous waste.
While we do not have the Scientific Panel Report, it should
be helpful to know what types of technologies are currently being
applied to Arizona-generated waste at out-of-state TSD's. We
know the technologies below are applied to Arizona-generated
waste, but the limited information in the FARs makes it
impossible to determine the precise volume of waste treated by
each technology. It was the Committee's hope that the Scientific
Panel would have provided the information to perform this
analysis.
Disposal Technologies Applied to Arizona-Generated Hazardous
Waste
1) deactivation - a process to remove the hazardous
Characteristics of a waste;
2) incineration ~ the burning of combustible solvents,
primarily in cement kilns(see Chapter IV);
3) recovery of organics in waste utilizing specified
techniques;
4) thermal recovery of lead in secondary lead smelters;
5) thermal recovery of metals or inorganics;
6) retorting/roasting waste in a thermal processing unit;
7) fuel sUbstitution.
For wastes that are not sUbject to LDR regulations, the
treatment technology utilized is based on EPA-approved hazardous
waste handling practices which may include the techniques
ss
described above as well as processes to recover metals, solvents
or disposal (see Appendix L). These technologies, such as
metals recovery processes, are more representative of the
technologies that are commercially available in Arizona.
summary
Due to the various technological options for managing an
individual hazardous waste and the limited information provided
in the FARs, it is difficult to project the specific technologies
or practices which will be utilized by Arizona generators on the
waste in any given year. It depends, in part, on the regulatory
status as well as cost-effectiveness of a treatment technology.
In addition, some Arizona generators may be committed to manage
their hazardous waste under existing contracts with specific TSD
facilities outside of Arizona. Therefore, generators need to be
surveyed to see if they would use an Arizona site.
56
Chapter VII. Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization in Arizona
Pollution Prevention
HB 2121 (Chapter 315, Laws 1991) established an incentive­based
pollution prevention program for Arizona businesses to
reduce the amount of hazardous wastes generated and toxic
substances used' (see Appendix M). Under current state law
(A.R.S. S49-961), pollution prevention means operational
procedures and processes and improvements in housekeeping or
management techniques that reduce potential or actual releases of
pollutants (i.e., hazardous wastes, toxic substances, water
contaminants, air emissions) to the environment. The program
requires LQGs and others that use certain amounts of toxic
substances to submit a pollution prevention plan to ADEQ (phased
in over four years beginning with the largest generators in
December 1992). Facilities that file a plan (even those that do
not meet the threshold requirements) receive a 50% credit on
their hazardous waste generation fees collected by ADEQ for the
year the plan is submitted. Because the first submittal date for
pollution prevention plans is not until December 1992, limited
information was available to the Committee to fulfill its
directive to determine the potential reduction in the amount of
hazardous waste that could result from pollution prevention plan
implementation and waste reduction techniques.
As pollution prevention plans are submitted and evaluated
over the next several months, ADEQ will have the information
57
necessary to assess pollution prevention activities utilized by
Arizona businesses and the impacts of those activities on our
hazardous waste stream. In January 1994, state law (A.R.S. §49-
963) will ensure that ADEQ further promotes the reduction or
elimination of hazardous wastes by establishing a numeric waste
minimization goal for Arizona.
waste Minimization
Waste minimization includes any source reduction or
recycling activity undertaken by a generator that reduces the
volume and/or toxicity of hazardous wastes. Pollution prevention
and waste minimization may utilize similar methods and procedures
to achieve their distinct goals of eliminating or reducing
pollutants and hazardous waste, respectively. Demonstrated
techniques include the following:
1) changes/substitutes in raw materials used in the
manufacturing process, reduction or elimination of
toxic sUbstances;
2) changes in applied technologies or processes;
3) product sUbstitutions;
4) good operating practices such as spill prevention,
inventory control to ensure substances are used before
they expire and are considered wastes;
5) in-process or other on-site recycling processes that
reuse or reclaim valuable materials.
Based on existing data, 54 out of 251 Arizona LQG generators
provided waste minimization data from 1990-91 on their FARs
submitted to ADEQ in 1992 (see Table 6 and Appendix N). As
58
reported, these 54 generators reduced the amount of hazardous
waste they produced by 11.3%. A total of 22 types of wastes were
reduced including the 12 major waste types. generated in Arizona
(see Table 7).
59
Table 7
Hazardous Waste Minimized by 54 Selected
Generators in 1991, by Waste Type
========================================
Waste Type Pounds Percent
========================================
D002
FOOl
D008
D006
F006
F003
LABP
D001
D003
F005
F002
D007
P066
D005
D035
D018
D009
D028
DOll
D029
F007
D039
460,926
432,422
163,282
128,867
115,700
100,700
93,180
76,548
64,024
53,085
51,422
7,544
6,760
5,708
4,575
1,943
1,288
700
700
392
300
233
26.04
24.43
9.22
7.28
6.54
5.69
5.26
4.32
3.62
3.00
2.90
0.43
0.38
0.32
0.26
0.11
0.07
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.01
=======================================
Total 1,770,300 100.00
=======================================
The 54 generators reduced their wastes primarily by
instituting process modifications such as "closed-loop" recycling
and/or sUbstituting solvents with aqueous cleaners in the
manufacturing process. A significant amount of reduction was
achieved by simply implementing good operating practices such as
increasing the emphasis on maintenance or more efficient
production scheduling. Some generators recycled on-site as an
62
extension of the production process which also resulted in long-term.
cost benefits to the generator (see Table 8).
Table 8
Quantity of Hazardous Waste Reduced by
54 Generators in 1991 by Waste Minimization Technique
=================================================================
Technique
Process Modifications
Good Operating Practices
Recycling Activity
Raw Material Modifications
Inventory Control
Spill and Leak Prevention
Product Modifications
Pounds
781,877
423,588
280,640
126,060
120,765
31,110
6,260
Percent
44.17
33.93
15.85
7.12
6.82
1.76
0.35
"=================================================================
Under the federal CAP requirements, states may claim the
reduction of 10% of hazardous wastes generated within their
borders without documentation. The 11.3% reduction reported to
ADEQ satisfies the minimum federal standard almost entirely
through the implementation of good housekeeping practices. Using
these 54 companies as a sample of Arizona's hazardous waste
generators, we can conclude that the potential for reduction of
hazardous wastes generated through pollution prevention
implementation is great.
Summary
The most effective way to handle hazardous waste is to not
create it in the first place. Waste minimization/pollution
prevention practices will continue to develop in Arizona over the
next several years with the implementation of ADEQ's pollution
63
prevention program and increasing awareness of waste reduction
technologies. However, it must be noted that the reduction of
hazardous wastes generated or toxic substances used might be
offset at any time by economic growth resulting in increased
levels of production by Arizona businesses or new business moving
to Arizona. Regardless, it is essential that all hazardous waste
generators in Arizona commit to promoting and implementing
pollution prevention practices if we are to significantly reduce
our hazardous waste stream over time. One of the criteria for
soliciting new business in Arizona must to be the commitment of
those companies to protecting the environment and doing pollution
prevention.
64
Chapter VIII. utilization of the Estrella Point Site in Mobile
Description
The Estrella Point (also known as ENSCO) facility is located
on a 640-acre site approximately 45 miles southwest of Phoenix
and six miles west/southwest of Mobile, Arizona. The main
facility covers approximately 65 acres and is surrounded by a
six-foot chain link fence. Since September 24, 1991, the
Department of Administration (DOA) has managed and provided 24-
hour security and maintenance for the site. DOA's cost to manage
the site is approximately $100,000 annually (see Appendix 0).
The Estrella Point site encompasses an assortment of
physical structures originally designed for the storage and
disposal of hazardous waste. The site houses a number of
administrative and maintenance buildings which are completed or
near completion. other structures include a large warehouse
designed, upon completion, to store newly arrived hazardous waste
from an adjacent truck-rail siding. If completed as designed,
the facility could handle numerous hazardous waste transport
trucks per day. Based on a 1987 report prepared for the
Department of Health Services (DHS), an average of 19 daily
shipments to the facility was expected. 3
The site has several waste processing areas including a
partially completed solidification tank and a 750,000 gallon raw
311Risk Assessment of Transporting Hazardous Waste to the
Arizona Waste Management Facility, II p. 7 of the final draft
prepared by Mountain West on April 17, 1987.
65
water storage tank. A 350 sq. ft. concrete slab (3.5 ft. thick)
has been poured, which was intended to support three portable
hazardous waste incinerators and kiln driers. In addition, the
site has a lined brine pond to accommodate post processing run­off.
The site also has a 7-8 acre landfill area designed for
four cells. Excavation has been initiated on two of the cells.
A completed stormwater retention pond is designed to provide
protection from floods and natural runoff to the main site.
History
The primary purpose of the Estrella Point facility was to
serve the hazardous waste needs of Arizona. As a functional
disposal site, the Estrella Point facility was designed to
alleviate both the high cost of shipping hazardous' waste out-of­state
for disposal and illegal dumping of hazardous waste in the
state's riverbeds and deserts. currently, disposal of Arizona's
hazardous wastes is handled by 23 other states - primarily
California (see Chapter III).
The Estrella Point facility was designed to handle a variety
of industrial and commercial hazardous wastes including organic
waste, solvents, metallic sludges, liquids, and solids.
Hazardous material spills from state and federal superfund clean­up
sites would also have been disposed of at this site. However,
the facility is prohibited from accepting any radioactive
materials, explosives, or household wastes (A.R.S. S49-903 (B)).
66
In 1980, the Arizona Legislature directed the Arizona
Department of Health Services (DHS) to select a site for a state
hazardous waste disposal facility. Upon the recommendation of
ADHS in 1981, legislation was adopted selecting the Mobile site.
The land for the site was purchased by the state from the federal
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for $256,000 on June 29, 1984,
with no formal restrictions on its use, although the
understanding at the time was that it was to be developed as a
hazardous waste disposal site. An additional right-of-way
easement for access from State Route 238 to the site was obtained
from BLM.
This legislation also directed DHS to adopt rules governing
the -management, construction and operation" of any state
disposal site (see former A.R.S. S 36-2806, now A.R.S. S 49-905).
These regulations were to include provisions relating to the
transportation of hazardous waste within Arizona to the site and
the -types and amounts of hazardous wastes to be accepted for
disposal" by the facility. To date, these regulations have not
been adopted because there is no operational state hazardous
waste facility.
In January 1981, DHS prepared a report to the Legislature on
the status of the hazardous waste facility (a copy is on file and
available for pUblic review at ADEQ - see Appendix AA). The
report informed the Legislature that other states could use the
Arizona disposal site, although such use would be discouraged.
~
The report noted that waste importation was a highly sensitive
67
issue governed by legal, administrative, economic and
environmental considerations.
In October 1982, DHS issued an Request For Proposals (RFP)
for the design, construction, financing, operation, and
maintenance of a hazardous waste management facility to be
located in Mobile. While 70 firms received the RFP, only two
submitted bids for the project. The first bid proposed a Klow
technology" approach using only a landfill to dispose of
hazardous waste. The second bid, submitted by ENSCO, proposed a
Khigh technology" approach which included not only advanced
landfill disposal, but also, advanced technology incineration to
be used for PCB's.
In July 1983, the state accepted ENSCO's bid. It called for
one incinerator, regional PCB waste disposal, and mobile
equipment which would help avoid high capital costs. ENSCO
estimated the cost of the facility to be $16 million. In January
1986, the contract between the state and ENSCO was executed. 4
4 Some prov1s1ons of this contract included the site being
designated as a Kfull service" facility providing for the storage,
treatment, and disposal of hazardous waste, including incineration.
A user fee schedule was to be established prior to the operation of
the facility by which ENSCO would be provided with a reasonable
annual gross profit margin. Fees were to be remitted to the state
which was to retain $150,000 annually plus 2% of the gross
revenues, SUbject to an undetermined annual cap (the balance of the
fees was to be paid to ENSCO). Finally, it was stipulated that
ENSCO would finance, construct, operate, and maintain the facility
in accordance with applicable state and federal laws, regulations
and permits, and its contract with the state. six months after the
contract was signed, ENSCO estimated the cost of the facility to be
$26 million. In 1987, the-contract was extended five years until
2001. In September 1989, ENSCO estimated its capital investment in
the site to be $47 million. The state acquired ENSCO's interests
in the site for $44 million in September 1991.
68
status of Peraits Issued at Estrella Point
In February 1988, a pUblic hearing was held in Mobile on the
ADEQ Proposed Groundwater Protection Permit and Solid Waste
Approval. At that time, the Air Quality Installation Permit was
issued, but ADEQ lacked statutory authority to hold hearings on
proposed air quality installation permits. Revisions to the air
quality statute were enacted in 1989 and became effective on
September 15, 1989, requiring that all proposed air permits be
SUbject to pUblic comment and the opportunity for pUblic
hearings.
with the issuance of the following permits, construction was
allowed to begin on portions of the facility:
(1) Permit No. 1203, an Air Quality Installation
Permit, issued by ADEQ on February 4, 1988;
(2) A national approval to operate the MWP 2000
incinerator for treatment of PCB's, issued by
EPA under the Toxic Substance Control Act on
March 16, 1988;
(3) Permit No. G-008-07, a Groundwater Protection
Permit issued by ADEQ on April 19, 1988; and
(4) A solid waste approval, reference number SW­8894,
issued by ADEQ on April 25, 1988.
On May 7, 1990, a joint ADEQ/EPA pUblic hearing on the
following proposed permits was held in Mobile:
69
(1) Permit No. 1224, a revised Air Quality
Installation Permit, proposed by ADEQ under
the Arizona Air Quality Act;
(2) A hazardous waste permit, proposed by ADEQ
under the Arizona Hazardous Waste Management
Act;
(3) A hazardous waste permit, proposed by EPA
under the federal Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act; and,
(4) A toxic waste facility permit, proposed by
EPA under the Toxic Substance Control Act.
Additional pUblic hearings on June 20, 1990, and June 21,
1990, were held in Phoenix and Tucson, respectively. Together,
these three public proceedings drew over 3,000 people from which
an excess of 300 oral comments were received from individuals and
organization representatives.
If the site is completed as originally designed, a
SUbsequent operator of the site would have the opportunity to
utilize any documents on file at ADEQ related to the permits to
the extent they are relevant and appropriate. However, all
permits and perait applications issued by ADEQ to ERSCO for the
facility have been terminated. Any new operator would be
required to initiate new permit applications (see Appendix P).
In addition, should completion of the site deviate from the
specifications originally presented by ENSCO, the documents would
have to be modified accordingly. All records related to ENSCO's
70
permits and the permit application process are boxed in storage
at ADEQ and are available for pUblic review.
Legal Xssues Xnvolving the Disposal of Hazardous waste
It is clear that one of the most contentious issues facing
environmental management today is the treatment and disposal of
hazardous waste. In Arizona, the principal areas of concern have
been the importation and incineration of hazardous waste and
attempts to focus on toxic use reduction and pollution
prevention.
Many state and local governments have sought ways to prevent
or restrict the flow of hazardous waste into their jurisdictions.
These attempts have included enacting outright bans on out-of­state
waste, levying higher fees on imported waste, and adopting
waste management plans that direct certain types of waste to
specified facilities. The legality of such restrictions is
governed by the Commerce Clause of the u.s. Constitution which
limits the rights of states to regulate interstate commerce.
Under the Commerce Clause, state and local governments are
prohibited from interfering with interstate commerce unless they
are deemed to be "market participants." Based on existing case
law, outright bans on the importation of hazardous waste based
solely on the origin of the waste would be illegal. s
S
(1978) .
City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617, 621-22
71
A few state and local government actions have survived
jUdicial scrutiny under the Commerce Clause. If a state
qualifies as a "market participant" it may prohibit or limit the
processing of imported waste or may charge higher fees for
processing through contract, statute or rule. The tests applied
by the courts focus on whether the state's activities constituted
direct participation in the marketplace. For example, in swin
Resource Systems, Inc. v. Lycoming county, Pennsylvania, 883 F.2d
245 (3rd cir., 1989) the Third Circuit held that because the
county owned and operated the landfill in dispute, the county was
free to impose price and volume conditions on waste generated
outside of the county. The court reasoned, "residents who reside
within the jurisdiction of a county or municipality are unlikely
to pay for local government services if they must bear the cost
but the entire nation may benefit." Such restrictions, however,
could not apply to privately-owned landfills and not beyond the
immediate market in which the county transacts its business.
Id. at 250-51.
In 1991, Governor Symington led an effort to acquire ENSCO's
interests in the Estrella Point facility. Sole ownership of the
Estrella Point facility gives the state the ability to control
the source, type and amount of hazardous waste handled at this
facility. This authority made it possible for the Legislature to
amend A.R.S. S 49-903 in 1991 to prohibit disposal of any
hazardous waste at the site that is generated outside the state
until the Legislature approves an interstate disposal agreement
72
pursuant to CERCLA or finds that such a prohibition is no longer
in the best interests of the state (A.R.S. S 49-903(0». An
outright ban on incineration of hazardous waste at state-owned
facilities was enacted by the Legislature at the same time
(A.R.S. S 49-903(C».
During the 1992 Legislative Session, the Legislature enacted
SB 1053. This legislation requires all state agencies to perform
a constitutional takings implications assessment of proposed
rules and related agency actions pursuant to guidelines prepared
and interpreted by the Arizona Attorney General's Office (Chapter
107, Laws 1992). Because this legislation focuses on the scope
and conditions of regulatory permits issued by state agencies,
this Committee asked the Attorney General's Office to provide
advice on the impact of SB 1053 on the state's ability to
restrict future uses of the Estrella Point facility (see
Attachment 5).
The Attorney General's Office provided the Committee with an
analysis which breaks down into two areas. First, to the extent
the state attempts to place regulatory restrictions on commercial
activities performed by private parties at the Estrella Point
facility, the provisions of SB 1053 will apply. However, if the
state retains ownership and operates this facility, SB 1053 will
not apply, nor will SB 1053 apply if the state leases the site to
a private party after having obtained the appropriate regulatory
permits in the state's name. This is because SB 1053 only
applies to governmental actions which limit the use of private
73
property. As long as Estrella Point is owned by the public or is
pUblic property leased to a private party, the state may restrict
the use of that property.
The state's ability to impose permit conditions on regulated
activities on private property has always been restricted by the
scope of the agency's statutory authority. SB 1053, however,
imposes an additional layer of regulatory control requiring,
among other things, that permit conditions ·shall directly relate
to the purpose for which the permit is issued, shall
sUbstantially advance that purpose and shall be expressly
authorized by law" (A.R.S. S 37-222(C) (1». Moreover, when state
action is intended to protect the pUblic health and safety, such
action may be ·taken only in response to real and substantial
threats to public health and safety" and ·no greater than
necessary to achieve the health and safety purpose" (A.R.S. S 37­221(
B) (4) (a) and (c». The Arizona Attorney General's Office
believes this language is ambiguous as to what conditions would
meet this criteria (see Attachment 6). until a permit
application is initiated (after the Attorney General's guidelines
are in place), it is difficult to determine the extent to which
the provisions of SB 1053 will restrict the state's ability to
impose permit conditions on commercial activities by private
parties at the Estrella Point facility. However, there is no
question that SB 1053 will restriction the state's control over
the site.
74
It is important to understand that for the purposes of SB
1053 there is a distinction between regulatory actions taken by
the state which restrict the actions of private parties and
contractual provisions negotiated between the state and a private
party. Nothing in SB 1053 restricts the state's ability to
impose restrictions on activities at the Estrella Point facility
through a contract executed between the state and a private
party. As long as the private party agrees to be bound by the
terms and conditions of a contract governing the operations at
the Estrella Point facility, the state is free to negotiate
operating restrictions. Nevertheless, to minimize the potential
for claims against the state alleging unwarranted takings of
private property, the Attorney General's Office has advised this
Committee that a contractual provision should be obtained from
the private party in which the party waives all rights to
compensation for loss of any property rights. This will not free
the state from its requirement to perform a takings assessment,
but it will limit the private party's ability to object to
alleged unwarranted governmental takings to those restrictions
imposed in a regulatory permit.
The state may also impose restrictions on future
owners/operators of the Estrella Point facility by including
restrictive covenants in the deed. Such restrictions, if
properly drafted, can run with the land indefinitely. To be
valid, however, the state must retain an ownership interest in
the facility real property or land adjacent to the facility.
75
sa 1053 requires the Attorney General to adopt guidelines to
assist state agencies in the identification of governmental
actions that have constitutional takings i~plications by January
1994. until these guidelines are prepared, it is difficult to
determine the exact nature of the restrictions to be placed upon
state agency regulatory actions. Moreover, an initiative
proposal which would repeal the provisions of sa 1053 is awaiting
a determination by the Secretary of State that sufficient
signatures have been obtained to place the initiative on the 1994
ballot. If the Secretary of State determines that sufficient
signatures have been obtained, all action to enforce the measure
will be in abeyance until the referendum is put to a vote of the
people in the 1994 general election. Until this issue is finally
addressed by the Attorney General's Office or the pUblic through
the voting process, this Committee is unable to thoroughly
address the potential ramifications of sa 1053.
'6
Chapter IX. committee Recommendations to the Governor and the
Legislature
The committee wishes to advise the Legislature that after a
year of researching and taking testimony from numerous experts in
the field (including the Scientific Panel, the regulated
community, state and federal regulators and the environmental
community), we believe that additional information is necessary
before making any final recommendations on the use of the
Estrella Point site. While we believe that additional
information is critical to a sound decision on the state's future
hazardous waste treatment and disposal needs, the following
recommendations are appropriate at this time:
1. until additional information as itemized below is obtained,
the committee recommends that the Legislature retain the
site, but not use it for hazardous waste management. The
committee recommends that, if the Estrella Point site is
ever used for hazardous waste handling, the state retain
ownership of the site in order to maximize its ability to:
(a) control the type of technology used at the site; (b)
determine the amount of hazardous waste accepted at the
site; and (c) restrict or ban the source of hazardous waste
accepted at the site.
2. The committee recommends that the Legislature fund a
balanced scientific study as outlined in Attachment 7 of
77
this Report to consider all appropriate innovative and
existing technologies which: (a) treat and dispose of
Arizona's hazardous waste stream in a manner that maximizes
the protection of human and environmental health; (b) is
economically viable; and (c) could reduce generation of
hazardous waste and the subsequent need for hazardous waste
management facilities.
3. The committee recommends that the Legislature maintain the
statutory ban on incineration at state-owned hazardous waste
facilities (A.R.S 49-903(C».
4. The committee recommends that the Legislature maintain the
statutory ban on importation at the Estrella Point site
(A.R.S. 49-903(D».
5. The committee recommends that the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality's (ADEQ) current statutory role of
regulation, management and operation of the state site,
pursuant to A.R.S. S49-903, be separated, with ADEQ
retaining its regulatory authority and the management and
operation of the site assigned to an appropriate state
agency, depending on the use of the site.
6. The committee recommends that the Legislature fund ADEQ to
conduct a survey of those generators that cumulatively
78
produce 85% of the hazardous waste in Arizona (identified in
this report) to identify opportunities to maximize pollution
prevention and to determine the likelihood of these
generators using a disposal facility in Arizona, both
presently and after implementing aggressive pollution
prevention/toxic use reduction programs.
7. The Committee recommends that the Legislature adopt into
statute priorities for handling waste in the following
manner: (a) source reduction; (b) recycling/reuse; and (c)
treatment and disposal. Consistent with these priorities,
the Committee recommends that the Legislature embark upon
creating an aggressive pollution prevention program in
Arizona based upon results of the 1992 pollution prevention
plan data required to be submitted to ADEQ on or before
December 31, 1992.
8. The Committee recommends that the Legislature consider the
feasibility and benefit of expanding the reporting
requirements of Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity
Generators (CESQGs) to provide mare information regarding
the number of generators, the amounts and types of hazardous
waste generated in Arizona. The Committee recommends that,
in obtaining this information to determine the impact on
human and environmental health by these generators, the
79
Legislature be sensitive to the cost of additional reporting
requirements on the reporting entities.
9. The Committee recommends that the Legislature consider the
feasibility and benefit of expanding the reporting
requirements on municipalities to provide more information
regarding the amounts and types of hazardous waste generated
by households and businesses. The committee recommends that
the Legislature be sensitive to the cost of additional
reporting requirements on the reporting entities as well as
the cost of continuing to place hazardous waste generated by
households and businesses in solid waste landfills.
10. The Committee recommends that the Legislature remove the ban
on disposal of household hazardous waste at any state-owned
hazardous waste facilities (A.R.S. 49-903(B».
11. The Committee recommends that the Legislature, when
attempting to project hazardous waste generation in Arizona,
re-examine Arizona's definition of hazardous waste to
consider whether it wants to modify that definition to take
into consideration more expansive definitions in other
states.
12. The Committee recommends that the Governor assure that
Arizona receives adequate credit for its receipt of
80
federally-defined hazardous waste at facilities in Arizona
from the other states in the Western states Regional
Agreement. Arizona should also receive' credit from the
members of the Agreement for the importation'of all waste
deemed hazardous in the state of origin.
13. The committee recommends that, until the state is successful
in receiving credit for the importation of hazardous waste
to private facilities in Arizona, the state should impose a
ban on the importation of hazardous waste at all state-owned
hazardous waste facilities other than Estrella Point.
14. The committee recommends that the Legislature make no
decisions concerning the Estrella Point site until it
receives current hazardous waste information from ADEQ's
accounting system and data management system.
15. The committee recommends that the Department of
Administration perform an audit of all materials and
equipment at the Estrella Point site for the purpose of
determining whether such items should be made available for
use to state agencies or sold if in danger of
deteriorization. The Committee recommends that the disposal
of these items should not jeopardize future utilization of
the site.
81
16. The Committee recommends that the Department of
Administration find an alternative use for the Estrella
Point site.
82
Attachment 1
Arizona
Was1e CodefTechnologies
NonllQulO BOt. i LlOUIO t3()t. 1
0(- "8(>11011100 I - c=== - Ipnn~ uoutOs ~10 ~ TOC FSU8S;RORGS; or CNON
N:::tC 5UbCal.pory [)eac:uvauon - J;.oo....l)'. IVe~CllV.ltOn :-+tG'uu.llZaloOn.
neutralaatlOfl. inc:inerallOfl If'lCltMIrallan
ke"ClIVfl C.yarncKl Suocatepo'r AlIl.ailne cNOflNltlOn. ~l a" AlKaline c:nloflf~\lon. we1 alf
oxidation. 01 •••cuolytc oxlOallon. 01 .leCHotyUC
oxidatIOn. 01lIOa1IOn,__---- __
I 'Ii"uIIC.:IO°
I C,..mlr-.'O'eopna"nn
;"r~."'"
banum SUl~lZ.uon Ctwtmcat preQPClauon
e..am.um SlIlbiIaa"oll 0' metal .ec:o....ry ChemICal pt-oPft.'lOn
()vomI.Im ChromIum ,.ouClion. stabia.llOn crwonwm fedUc:uon. pl'eQt)IlatlOtl
LNCl SlabQaaUon Chemrcal p'.QPftatIOO. sJuOge
cH>wat••rnc
....,c:uryl~' m;fo."Y Subcat~) . /!tCId "ac:neng. etaeme:al ox.cauon. Chenuc:at pceapllauon with SU• .c:M
~ .....rino I Cherrncal pr.aDll_ron welt! sull.c:M
~naum SlabillZatlon
Swel SlabtlaaUon 01 'eQ)V.!!y. . -1 Chem~~~1C)tl
~
tnanera"on _.,. -_.- -r,;;;;r.atron or carnon adsorpuon
benz.", - VWOfooerueM
Cniorotorm ------ o-Clnel
_. -
1.4. DchtorObenz.N I .
1,1 O«::htorMlhY'.N
'2."i~'-
~:."~ C"..~v ":=:-.5 -. - 1 I
F'.m~not ~---:- I "-
,.c.,5-TP &nc:Inera'tOfl cn.mical QxIcaUon or tnc:ineratlOtl
l~nv"n. I
•raet\iOfOeU'Wle'" I
Spen: SoIwInss Usee In Oegrtraswtg InCIneration ~.an: S~, OlOopecal
treatment, ActiYaled Ca\'t)Qfl.
~..,." ~.r~ :.:..: :.-. ~:;:s~~ ~e!2!":'''' I S'eam SttClO'l\;. &1Ob9c:a1
I ".II1m.nt. Aet",...c Cal'DOfl.
Spen: ScMvams Used in o.pf8aP'1g incineration IsaArr. S~. ~ecal ,
treatment. Acliva1.e Catt»on.
Spen: Solv.ms Used In o.pr••SInQ ,.nan.rauon
. Isa••mSll~. CwcMopecal
treatment. Aetiv81ed Catt»on.
Spen: Sotvents Usee in o.p,easeng incineratIOn Steam S1rQ)rI'- EMobpcaJ
treatment Aclivattld Carbon.
W~.,. sauop. lrom ANiIne ChiOrJnalGn .cyanIDeS): AUW~
~Operations chemaJ pr-*Idion. ~. CcyaniOes)=:IUOmium Ndu=ion.
Glnliof\. and aabiiz.aion prec:QCalion with WM anCl
C""') sul'1Oel. ~ cewasering
•..wsl
$peftl Oya" \Of'm~ AIuiIne~tcyanilMs): MalIne CNl:W1nallOn CcyarMOes);
~ chemical pKipi.aion. aaaJinG, cn.mical prec:i>itatior.. setting. . tllt8lion. and aabiVasion sUOp. oewat.ring (rn«aa)
'lMtatsl
Paunp ba1I'l .~ trom ~~Cc:yaNOeS}; Alulrne CNOnnlUtOrl tcyanides):
Eiec:uoplating Operalions . chernical prec:ipil.aion, seD~. chemical pr-='alion. settlin;. fllllahon. and stabilization sluOpe oewa~rin; (metalS)
'fMUUSl
$pen: S&npping lrom E..cuopWtng AJKakne~.cyanides); ~1'Mr etuorlnatlon ~e:y~nioas);
Operations chemical pr.eiQi!non. sear.,;. Chemical precipitation. -s.Ufin;,
filtl1ltion.ane S1abiizmion 'meWs) ~e Clewatarinc: (m~ats)
W~'fWIll.r 1Jecmem SiuOpes ttom ~Chtonnaton icyanlOeS}; Akaw cnlOfinallOn (cyanlOes);
AIutnn~ Coating a.t»zation Cc:htomiurn) d\romium r.oUCtion. enemical
pr~wilh lim. ant
sulfides. sIuO~ c.wa'erinQ
(metals) Incin.ralion . -- ._.. ..-
Fe"
Fa01
F005
Foes
FOOl
FOC3
~C~!
D037
0038
0035
DO.O
FOO'
FOD6
000.11
0005
0006
0007'
000.
DOOS
D003
FOO~
0010
"DO"
DO"
0011
&,)Il~'
0022
00:3
D027
OC2P
ocio
•• SIE-" CO
000'
0002
Paqe 1
Arizona
Waste CodelTechnofogies
2
TIetlnlllo n NOn IIIQuid BOAT LiquId BOAT
Mun,l"ctlaI6 InclO81altOn (olganICS), BI()/OQlCaJ Irealmer.; :':';~wed by"
stabilization (metals) chemical ptecipitation; or wel-ait
oxidalion followed by carbon
adsorption followed by chemical
pree:ipitation
Petroleum industry tank bonoms SoIvenl extraction or tnCIOelalton Incineration (cyanides): Chromium
(leaded) (organies), stabilizatIOn of ash reduction, chemeal ptecipaation,
vacuum filtration (metals)
&ozopyran
.__.-
FSUSS;or INCIN:---- ~IOX«CAOXO) tb cAAmi;Or
INCIN
AMyl alcohol FSUBS: or INCIN. (WETOX or CHOXO) tb CAABN; or
. - INON
"·Aminopyridne INCIN. (WETOX or CHOXO) fb CARBN; or
INClN
Arsenic: acid Vitrification Chemical precipitation
ArMnic: oxide VitrifICation Chemical
..
lilian
Arsenic oxide Vltrihcation ChemICal praapitmion
&ryUium Dust RMETL; or RTHRM.
Otehloromethyl ether INCIN. (WETOX or CHOXO) fb CARBN: or
INClN
Oinoseb Incineration BIOlogical treatment or wet-air
, oxidation tollowed by carbon
adsorption
Caroon dlSulllde INCIN. Biological treatment or wet-au
oxidation tollowed by carbon
adsorption
Accnaldehyde. chlaro- INCIN. - (Wt:lOX or CHOXO) fb CARBN; or
/NON
&ozenamine. 4-chlore- Incineration Biological tleaunent or wet-air
oxidation to8owed by
- carbonadsorption
Beoze~. (chloromethyl)-l • Ie INCIN. (WETOX or CHOXO) tb CARBN; or
INCIN
Copper cyanide E6earolytlc oxidation 10U0wed by AiWne chbrination (cyanides);
alkarltle chlorination (cyanides); chemical pc'ec::ipitation, settling
chemical precipitation. sealing, and sludge dewaterinQ (metals)
fil1ndion lmetals) .
CyaOloes E6eetrolytic QXidation 1olloweO by AJkaIuwl chlorination (cyanides);
akaline chJorination (cyanides); chemical precipitation, settling
chemical precipitation. sealing, and sludge dewatering (metals)
fil1ration (metals1
Oteldnn incineration Biological tleaunem Of wet-alf
oxidation folowed by carbon
ad5Cm)tion
O.o-otethyt ().pyrazinyl - FSUBS; 01 INCIN. CARBN; or NON
rothioat.
Oimethoat. FSUBSi or 1NCtN. CARBN: .. INCiN
Aziridme IN~N. 1WETOXor~OXD) fb _ - :or
INCIN
Hydrocyantc acid E6eClrotytic oxidation toUOwecl by Alkaline chlorination (cyatUdes);
akaW1. c:htorination (cyanides); chemical pc'ecipitation. senling
chemical ptecipitation. senltng. and sludge dewatering (metals)
filtration(metals1
E%hanimidothioic acid. N· INCIN. (WETOX orCHOXD) tb CARBN; or
n(methylamino)carbonyl}oxy}-. methyl INCIN
eS1er
Hydrazine. methyl- FSUBS; CHOXD; CHRED; or CHOXO: CHREO; CARBN; BIODG:
INCIN. ORINCIN
.-
Methyl.pa:~hio'2.. __ Rotary kiln lnoneration ._.. BtOlogl~1 tr8a~~ent
P022
P010
P01l
P012
POlS
P016
K052
POOl
P028
P029
P024
P023
P020
POOS
POOS
P030
P037
P040
P044
P054
P063
P068
P066
P07l
'''aste Gcde
F03G
2
Arizona
Waste CodelTechnologies
3
e .. oelinillOn NonllQlJlo BOA T LiquId B oA T
NICOline. & salts INCIN. (WETOX or CHOXD) 10 CARBN; or
INCIN
8enzenamUle InClnerallon 81010glcaltrealment or wet-air
oxidalion followed by carbon
adsorptIOn
Osmium oxide RMETL; or RTHRM.
EndothaII FSUBS; or INCIN. (WETOX orCHOXO) to CARBN;or'
INCIN
ParathIOn Rotary kiln lOcineratlOn BlOloQical Ireatment
Pnorate Rotary kiln incineration Biologicallfeatment
Potassium cyanide Elecsrolytic oxidation lo/lowed by Alkaline chlorinatIOn icyanides);
alkaline chlorination (cyanides): chemical precipitation. senling
chemic::al.precipitation. senling. and slUdge dewatering (metals)
fi/tration(metals}
Propargyt alcohol FSueS; Of INCIN
SodIUm azide FSUBS; CHOXO; CHRED; or CHOXO; CHREO; CARBN; BIOOG
INCIN or INCIN
Sodium cyanide .Elecsrolytlc oxidation lollowed by IAlkahne chlotlnat'on (cyanides); I r' alkaline chlorination (cyanides); chemical precipitation. senhng
-:.:...::--.;..:,;: p1-~~~.~:':" •. ;~:::"-.;. I
:.:-.: ;:~=;c =~~:a1e:'::':; :~:~:!I~~
filtration (metals)
TetraethytdithlopyrophosphatCl FSUBS' Or INCIN j CARBN;o~ INCIN
Ammonium vanadate STAal Chemical PieciprtatlOn - Toxaphene InCineration Biologlcallreatment or wet·alr
oxidation 1t)llowed by carbon
adsorption
Acetone InoneratlOn Or tuel substrtutlOn Biological treatment or wet-alt
oxidation tpuoweCl oy caroon
adsorption ! -
Acetonnrile INCIN BioIoglcallrsatment or wet-air
oxidation tollowed by carbon ... adsorPtion
Acetyl chloride INCIN (WETOX or CHOXO) fb CAR8N; or
INCIN
Acrylamids INCIN (WETOX orCHOXO) Ib CARBN; or
INCIN
Acrylic acid FSUBS; oc.INCIN (WETOX orCHOXD) lb CARBN; or
INCIN
Amllrole INCIN
Aniline Incineration Biological treatment or wet-air
oxidation foUowed by carbOn
adsorption
Azaseme ·INCIN (WETOX Of CHOXO) fb CARBN; or
INCiN
Benzene Incineration Bio6ogtcaJ treatment or wet-air
oxidation loUowed by carbOn
adSOfDtion
Benzenesullonie acid chloride INCIN (WETOX or CHOXO) tb CAR8N; or
INCiN
BenzidUM INCIN (WETOX or CHOXO) fb CARBN;Or
INCIN
1.2.a.nzenechcat1xlxyllC acid, bis(2- Rotary kiln incineration 1:2
ethylhexvl) ester
1·Butanol Incineration or fuel substitutIOn Biological treatment or wet-air
oxidation tollowed by carbon
adsorOlion
ED ic:hlorohydfln INCIN (WETOX or CHOXO) Ib CARBN; or
INCIN
U002
P106
P102
P10S
P017
U007
U006
U003-
P087
POSS
pon
'POg4
pon
P10i
p"g
P,23
U008
U011
0012
uo15
U015
U031
U021
U020
U028
':;iste Cod
P075~
3
Arizona
Waste Code/Technologies
4
E oe 11 n j Ioj n Nonllqu d SO A T LIquid BOAT
Ethene, d'lloro· Incmeratlon B,olO£llcal lrealmenl or wel·all
oxidation lollowed by carbon
adsorption
Chloroform Inclnerallon BIOlogIcal lrealment or weI-au
oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption
o-Ghior~nol Incineration BIOlogical 1rea1mont or wel·au
oridallOn followed by carbon
adsorptIOn
Cteosote ItlCIneration (organa); IncaneratlOn (organics); chemICal
stabilization (Iud) precipitatIOn (lead)
Creso/ (Cresyhc acid) InCineration BIOlogICal treatment or wet·a.,
oxidation 'obowed by carbon
adsorphon
8enzeO(l, hexahydro· FSUBS; or JNCIN (WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN; or
INCIN
CydJphosphamlde -FSUBS; or INCAN CARBN; or INCtN
000 Inclnera110n BIOlogical treatment or wet-alf
I . oxidation followed by carbon
adsorPtion
lOOT Incineration - BIOioglCa11rea1ment or wet·a,r
_.... J_. __ '_H_.••,.~ ..... , ,..-.~__
I _ .... __•• _ ... _ •._ ........ -J -- - _., . adsolP1l0n
Dibromomethane InCineration BIological treatment or wet·a"
oxidation fo/Iowed by carbon
adsorplton
Di-n-bUlyf phthalat& Rotary Kiln InCIneration
p-Dichlorobenzene Biological treatment or wet-au
oxidation followeQ by carbon
adsorption
DichjoroditluQromethane IncineratIon Bio'ogical treatment or wet-air
... oxidation followed by carbon aosorotior.
Methylene Chloride
2.2-Bioxirane ;:5U85; or lNCIN (WETOX or CHOXO) tb CARBN; or
INClN
Olmethytamrne INCIN
.__ ..
(WETOX or CHOXD) ttl CARBN; or
, INC/N
" , ·Dimethylhydrazine FSUBS: CHOXO; CHRED; or CHOXD; CHRED; CARBN; BIOOG;
INCIN or lNC/tII
Dimethyl.sulfate FSU8S; CHOXD; CHREO; or CHOXO; CHRED; CARBN; 8/0OG
INCIN or INClN
1.2-8enzenedlCarDOxyltc acid. deoc:tyl Rotary kiln anc:tneration BOogic:altteaunen1 or..t-alf
ester oxidation follow-o by c:art:»on
adsorption
1.4-{)tethyleneoxlde Inc:inerahon or fuel subslilutlon BOogic:allreatmen.t or ..1-air
oxidation foliowed by carbon
adsorption -
1.,2-Diphenythydrazine FSU8S; CHOXO: CHRED; or CAR8N; or INON
INCIN
~m~ INCIN (WETOX or CHOXO) fc CARBN; or
INCIN
Acetic acid ethyl ester IncltleratlOn BIOlogICal treatment or wet..ir
oxidalion followed by cart>on
adsorption
Ethane, 1,1 -oxybis· Incineration Biological treatment or wg1-alf
oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption
U058
U060
UOS6
uoga
U092
U044
U052
U075
U06S
U048
UOS1
U06'
U080
U085
U103
U107
U108
U101
U110
U117
U112
Vaste COd
UO<l3(
4
ArizO~3
Waste Code/Technoloaies
--'
5
~elinlllon Nonllould 80A1 liqUId BOA 1
MGlhane, lltchloroliuoro· inClnerallon BIOlogICal lrsalmfOnl 01 wei-air
oxldahon followed by CdrbOn
adsorption
FOfmaldGhyde FSU8S; or u."cm (WETOX orCHOXO) tb CARBN, Of
INC/N
Formic acid rSU8S: or INC.N (WETOX Of CHOXO) to CARBN; 01
INC/N _. --_._-
1.3-8U1adlene. 1.1.2.3.....4- Incloerallon blO!oglC3llreatment or wel-aH
hexachloro' oxidation tollowed by carbon
adsorpllon
Cyclohexal'Ml. 1.2.3.4.5.6-hexachloro- Incrnerallon BtoIogicaf lIealment or wei-ali
oxidalion to/lowed by carbon
(lalpha.2alpha,3beta.4alpha.Salpha.6 adSOfption
beta)-
Hydrazlne FSU8S;CHOXO;CHRED;or CHOXD: CHREO; CARBN; BIOoG I
U128
U1~2
U12S
U123
U133
Vaste Cope
U121
U134
U136
U1~4
U146
U147
U151
U154
U15Si
U160
U161
U165
U169
uno
U185
U188
UU6
U201
U204
tNCIN orlNCIN
Hydrofluoric acid AI>GAS fb NEUTR; Of NEUTR Chemical precipflallon
ArslnlC aCId. dlmethyl- VIlrifrcallon ChemICal Pf8Clpita1ion
AcetIC aod. lead(2.. ) sail IncmeratlOn followed by Chemeal oxldauon lollOwed by I slabili2allo~ chemlCz! :':(,CI~::2llOn ,
lead. bis(acetato-Q)lelrahydroxylri. Incinerallon lollowed by ChemICal reductIOn. lime or sulfide
stabilization precipitation. sludae dewaterino
2.S·FurandlOne FSUBS: or INCIl~ (WETOX orCHOXO) tb CAR8N; or
INC'N . --
Melphcuan INCIN
Methanol FSUBS: or INCIN. I(WETOX orCHOXO) fb CARSN: Of
INCrN
2·6L11anone ·tnclnerallon Biolooical treatment or wet-air
oxidation lollowed by carbon
adsorption I
2-8L11anone. peroxide FSUBS; CHOXO;CHREO; Of CHOXO; CHREO: CARBN; BIOOG:
I INCIN. orlNCIN
Methyl isobutyl ketone InClnerallon Biological trElalment or wet·all
I Ioxidation follOwed by cart>on
adsorotion
Naphthalene Incineration Biological treatment or wet-air
oxidation followed by carbon
, adsorption
Benzene. nnro· InCineration Bloloolcal treatment or wet-air
oxidation lollowed by carbon
adsorption
p-Nitropnenol Inclneralion Biological treatment or wet-air
oxidation lollowed by carbon
adsorDtion
Benzene. pemachkHonClro- InCltleration Biological treatment or wet-arr
oxidation .ollowed by carbon
adsorption
Phenol IncineratIOn 8toIogical treatment or_wet-a;r
oxidation lotlOwed by carbon
adsorption
2-Pacollne INCIN. (WE]OX or CHOXO) Ib CAR8N; or
INCtN
Pyridine
--_..- .. _-_.__.
Incineration Biologicalueatment or wet-air
oxidation followed by carbon
adsorDtion
, .3-6enzenediol FSUBS; OR INCIN. (WETOX Of CHOXO) to CAR8N; or
INCIN
Selenious acid StabiltzatlOn Chemical prectpnatlOn with
sulfides
5
Arizona
Waste Code/Technologies
6
~tlnilion NonllQuid BOAT L ,auld BOAT
EthenEl, tlltrachloro- Incmeratlon B,oloQlcallfeatmenl or wet·au
oxidation lollowed by carbon
---- -
adsorp"on _.-
Caroon tetrachloride Incmeratlon 6'lologlcallfea,menl or wet·au
oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption
Furan, teirahydro· FSUBS: or INCIN. (Wt: lOX or CHOXO) f.> CARBN: or
INCIN
ThIOurea INCIN. (WETOX Of CHOXD) fb CARBN; or
INCIN
Benzenll, methyl· Incineration BlOloolCaltreatmenl or wel-alr
oxidatIOn followed by carbon
adsorption
Benz.nll. , ,3-di,socyanatomethyl. FSUBS; or INCIN
Elhane, 1.1.1 -tnctlloro- Inclfleralion BIOlogical IIeatmenl or wet-all
oxidation followed by caroon
adsorption
Ethane. ',' .2-lnchloro· IncineratIOn BIOlogICal trealment or wet·au
oxidalion followed by carbon
adsorPtion
Elhene, trchloro- Inclneratlon BiologlCaltrealment or wel-aar
oxidation followed by carbon
adsorOllon
Ethene. trlchloro- InCineration 61010glcalJreatment or weI-air
oxidation lollowed by carbon
adsorption

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution.

Final Report and Recommendations
of the
Hazardous Waste Disposal Committee
Submitted to the Governor and the Legislature
January 12, 1993
ARIZONA DEPT. OF liBRARY
ARCHIVES &PUBLIC RECORDS
.JAN 151991
STATE DOCUMENTS
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL COMMITTEE REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface
Executive Summary
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
• 3
. 7
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
Introduction and Background
Arizona's Hazardous waste Capacity Assurance
Obligations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of the federal Capacity Assurance Plan
requirements and Arizona's status
Arizona's Hazardous waste Stream .
In-State Generation/Importation/Exportation
The What, Where and Who of hazardous waste
generation (importation and exportation) in Arizona
Arizona's Incinerable Hazardous Waste Stream.
Current Treatment and Disposal Practices . . .
Where does Arizona generated hazardous waste go
today and which EPA-approved technologies or other
practices are utilized
Evaluation of the Scientific Panel Report
Hazardous waste disposal/recycling technology
assessment
Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization in
Arizona
Reported and/or estimated amounts of hazardous
waste reduced through pollution prevention/waste
minimization practices by Arizona generators
12
20
24
43
48
53
57
LG- j I ;),' H/9j~
VIII.
IX.
utilization of the Estrella Point Site in Mobile .
Background history and status of permits issued at
the site
Legal issues involving the disposal of
hazardous waste in Arizona
Committee Recommendations to the Governor and the
Legislature
2
65
77
Preface
This report by the Hazardous Waste Disposal Committee has been
prepared in two parts. Part one contains the body of text with
tables/maps included in the text and nine attachments. All tables
and maps in this report are based on 1990 data analyzed by the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) except for the
waste minimization and household waste information, which includes
1991 data. Part two is the underlying data that was provided to
the Committee in developing the report, and is found in the
appendices listed below which are on file and available for pUblic
review at ADEQ.
PART ONE ATTACBKENTS
Reference
Date
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
Attachment 6
"Arizona Waste Code Technologies" 9/92
"Hazardous Waste Sub-Committee 1/16/92
Recommendations to Scientific Panel"
*Prepared by Committee
"outline for Scientific Panel Report 2/18/92
on Hazardous Waste Treatment and
Disposal Technologies"
*Prepared by Scientific Panel
"Letter Regarding Scientific Panel 8/13/92
Report" *Prepared by Jan Radimsky,
Panel Member
"Correspondence Regarding Legal Issues 9/21/92
Before Hazardous Waste Disposal Committee"
*Prepared by Rita Pearson, Chair
"Attorney General Memorandum Responding 10/1/92
to the Committee's Legal Questions on
9/21/92" *Prepared by Beryl Dulsky
3
Attachment 7
Attachment 8
Attachment 9
12/9/92
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Proposed study: Hazardous Waste Undated
Management and Treatment for Arizona
*Prepared by Jim Kuester, Committee
Member
Correspondence from Edward Fox, ADEQ 12/9/92
Director, to EPA requesting clarification
on inclusion of exempt recyclers in
Arizona's Capacity Assurance Plan
EPA response to ADEQ exempt recycler 12/14/92
letter on 12/9/92
PART TWO BACKGROUND APPENDICES
"Distribution of 1990 Hazardous Waste 4/24/92
Generation by County"
"Magnitude and Type of , Incinerable' 9/16/92
Wastes Generated by Arizona's 44 Largest Revised
Generators in 1990"
"Potential Technology for Managing 4/3/92
Hazardous Waste Generated by LQG & SQG
in Arizona"
"The 44 Largest Generators" 9/16/92
"Potential Technology for Managing 4/3/92
Household Hazardous Waste in Arizona"
"Memorandum in Response to Previous 8/24/92
Sub-Committee Report on the Amount of
Hazardous Waste Likely to be Incinerated"
*Prepared by Joni Bosh, Committee Member
Appendix G
Appendix H
Appendix I
Appendix J
Appendix K
"Estimation of Quantity of Hazardous
Waste That May Require Incineration"
"Amount of Hazardous Waste Imported by
Two Major Recyclers, 1990"
"Disposition/Treatment of 1990 Arizona
Hazardous Waste"
"Distribution of 1990 Hazardous Waste
Generation by Treatment Technology"
"Existing Storage/Treatment Facilities
in Arizona"
3/20/92
Revised
8/31/92
4/24/92
4/24/92
8/31/92
Appendix L
Appendix M
Appendix N
Appendix 0
Appendix P
Appendix Q
Appendix R
Appendix S
Appendix T
"EPA Technologies Available for 1/91
Demonstration"
*Prepared by EPA
"Pollution Prevention Programs 2/7/92
in Arizona and in other states"
"Analysis of 1991 Waste Minimization 8/31/92
Data as Reported in the FAR"
"Briefing by Department of 12/19/91
Administration on the Estrella Point
Facility Site" *Prepared by DOA
"ADEQ Letter to DOA Terminating All 11/9/92
Permits and Permit Applications
issued to ENSCO"
"Arizona's 1992 CAP Submitted to EPA" 2/14/92
"The Disposition of 1990 Arizona Generated 9/1/92
Hazardous Waste, A Summary"
"Hazardous Waste Generated by Military 2/7/92
Facilities 1987-1990"
"Hazardous Waste Generated by Military l/'2A/r::f2
Facilities 1990" including waste codes by
facility
Appendix U
Appendix V
Appendix W
Appendix X
Appendix Y
Appendix Z
Appendix AA
"List and Description of RCRA Waste
Codes" *Prepared by EPA
"Waste Generated by Facility"
"universe of Small Quantity Generators"
"Directory of North American Waste and
Material Exchanges"
"Waste Generated by Selected Generators"
"Estimation of Household Hazardous Waste
Generation"
"1981 DHS Report to the Legislature
regarding siting a statewide hazardous
waste disposal facility in Arizona"
5
Undated
l/'2A/r::f2
l/'2A/r::f2
4/90
l/'2A/r::f2
l/'2A/r::f2
7/81
Appendix BB
Appendix CC
Appendix DD
Appendix EE
"Environmental Impact statement for
the proposed Arizona hazardous waste
management facility"
"October 1990 Report of the Governor's
Hazardous Waste Technical Advisory
Committee"
Summary and status of Western States
Regional Agreement
Facility Annual Report forms, old (1990)
and new (1991)
6
7/83
10/1/90
6/18/91
1/91
Executive Summary
This report was prepared by the Hazardous Waste Disposal
Committee created under section 34, Chapter 315, Laws 1991. The
legislative mandate was to prepare a report and recommend what
actions, if any, to take regarding the use of incineration to
dispose of hazardous waste in Arizona, particularly at the
state's hazardous waste site in Mobile, Arizona. To make this
recommendation the Committee was directed to review and report on
the composition of Arizona's hazardous waste stream, compare that
waste stream with the amount of hazardous waste likely to be
incinerated, and evaluate hazardous treatment/disposal
technologies which were to be presented by a scientific panel
established pursuant to the statute.
After a year of study, this report is still incomplete. The
scientific panel failed to provide a report. Data on Arizona's
hazardous waste stream is not sUfficiently current to make final
recommendations on what types of hazardous waste
treatment/disposal should be encouraged in Arizona. Further
study is needed. However, using the available 1990 data, this
report presents, what the Committee believes is a fairly accurate
portrayal of Arizona's hazardous waste stream and several
recommendations that the Committee believes should be acted upon
without further work.
Based upon 1990 data, there were 592 generators of hazardous
waste in Arizona that generated 102,867,056 pounds (51,407 tons)
7
of hazardous waste. 98% or 100,814,244 pounds (50,407 tons) were
generated by 251 large quantity generators. 96% of the total
waste stream is composed of 12 waste types, most of which are
susceptible to recycling technologies and pollution prevention
techniques. Important to making a decision on what type of
treatment/disposal technologies are required in Arizona, only
one-quarter of the total waste stream is recurrent, meaning that
we can expect that amount to be generated each year. Projected
from 1990 data, the recurrent waste stream is 38,127,761 pounds
(19,063 tons). 43 generators produce 79% of that recurrent waste
stream (See page 28).
Arizona generated 13,348,329 pounds (6,674 tons) of
recurrent hazardous waste that was, could be or had to be
incinerated. 94% or 12,555,736 pounds (6,278 tons) were
generated by just 36 facilities. We know that of the 12,55,736
pounds, 5,761,286 pounds (2,880 tons) were recycled. Therefore,
in 1990 the amount of hazardous waste ultimately incinerated was
approximately 6,794,470 pounds (3,397 tons), 8% of Arizona's
recurrent waste stream. This number may be smaller due to double
counting. In any case, this waste stream is small when compared
to the 232,827 ton surplus incineration capacity in the Western
States.
Arizona does not have a commercial hazardous waste disposal
facility. There is one commercial treatment facility for metals
and solvents recovery which has the capacity to manage 20,038,000
pounds (10,019 tons) of waste per year. In addition there are
8
three Arizona facilities that are permitted to store hazardous
waste but they are not authorized for permanent disposal. There
are also seven treatment facilities in Arizona which are
"captive" meaning that they treat waste generated by a facility
on or off site with the same owner. Finally, there are three
recycling facilities in Arizona that are exempt from some of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations, such
as permit and reporting requirements. The two major recyclers
are World Resources and Cyprus Miami which import precious metals
containing hazardous waste sludge and then reclaim the precious
metals. The third recycling facility is Romic, which is located
on Indian lands and is under EPA jurisdiction. In 1990, 32% of
the state's total hazardous waste stream was treated at the ~ite
of generation and 10% was shipped to Arizona's treatment or
storage facilities. The remaining 58% of Arizona generated waste
was shipped out-of-state (See pages 38-39).
Two companies, World Resources and Cyprus Miami, import
electroplating sludge for the recovery of precious metals. In
1990 they accepted 38,902~624 pounds "(19,451 tons) of hazardous
waste from out-of-state. World Resources handles this material
and then exports it to New Mexico, British Columbia and Finland
for processing. Cyprus Miami accepts these wast~s and places
them in the smelter for metals recovery. In 1990 World Resources
accepted 30,357,360 pounds (15,178 tons) of precious metal
containing sludge from 21 states including Arizona. During that
same period Cyprus Miami accepted 8,545,264 pounds (4,272 tons)
9
from ten states including Arizona. For comparison Arizona
exported 58,410,468 pounds (29,205 tons) of hazardous waste to 23
states plus Finland and British Columbia (See pages 39-42).
Federal law requires Arizona, and all states, to have a plan
demonstrating its ability to treat or dispose of in-state
generated hazardous waste. While Arizona originally planned to
meet this requirement through the operation and management of the
ENSCO facility in Mobile, Arizona, this option is no longer
available because of the 1991 buyout of that facility. Since
that time Arizona has stayed in compliance with the federal
mandate through its participation in the Western States Regional
Agreement, where 13 western states have agreed to share
treatment/disposal capacity. This compliance status is
precarious because Arizona is not receiving credit from either
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the
other western states for its exempt recyclers, World Resources
and Cyprus Miami. Arizona must aggressively seek confirmation
from EPA and the other states that these recyclers count toward
Arizona's capacity. Arizona must start receiving credit for the
large amounts of hazardous waste accepted by World Resources and
Cyprus Miami.
Finally, it should be pointed out that because of incomplete
data this Committee is unable to make final recommendations on
how to use the Mobile site or what disposal or treatment
technologies are appropriate for Arizona's hazardous waste
stream. However, we have been able to determine that Arizona
10
does not have a large hazardous waste stream. The Committee has
come to the conclusion that until more information is known about
Arizona's hazardous waste stream and available technologies for
dealing with that waste stream, that the Mobile site should not
be used for any hazardous waste management activities.
Additionally, because Arizona's incinerable waste stream is so
small the Committee recommends that the state continue its ban on
incineration at state-owned facilities. Finally, the Committee
recommends that the Legislature enact an aggressive source
reduction (pollution prevention) program which, if successful,
would minimize Arizona's need for a pUblicly-owned or controlled
hazardous waste treatment or disposal facility.
11
Chapter I. Introduction and Background
This report was prepared by the Hazardous Waste Disposal
Committee (Committee) created by HB 2121 (Section' 34, Chapter
315, Laws 1991). HB 2121 directed the Committee to perform the
following tasks:
1. Evaluate the results of a scientific study prepared by
a scientific advisory panel regarding hazardous waste
treatment and disposal technologies (see Chapter VI);
2. Determine the potential reduction in the amount of
hazardous waste generated in Arizona that could result
from the application of pollution prevention and waste
minimization techniques (see Chapter VII); and,
3. Compare the total amount of hazardous waste generated
in Arizona with the amount likely to be incinerated
(See Chapter IV).
In addition, HB 2121 directed the Committee to report and
recommend to the Governor and the Legislature what actions should
be taken regarding utilization of incineration to dispose of
hazardous wastes, particularly at the state's hazardous waste
facility near Mobile, Arizona. This report was originally
scheduled to be completed by July 1, 1992; however, the statutory
reporting deadline was delayed by the Legislature until October
1, 1992, in order to permit the Committee to gather additional
information on the sUbject and to permit the Scientific Panel to
complete its report to the Committee. (See Chapter VI for a
discussion of the report prepared by the Scientific Panel).
The Committee members are as follows:
1. Senator Karan English
Chairman, Senate Environment Committee
12
2. Representative William Mundell
Chairman, House Environment Committee
3. Mr. Edward Fox
Director, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
4. Ms. Joni Bosh
Sierra Club
Public Member
5. Mr. Richard Keiffer
Manager, Safety & Environmental Protection Department,
Honeywell
Public Member
6. Dr. James Kuester
Professor, ASU College of Engineering
Public Member
7. Ms. Rita Pearson
Deputy Chief of Staff and Executive Assistant for
Environment and Natural Resources
Governor SYmington or his Designee
The Legislature determined the representative make-up of the
Committee and provided that the Governor appoint the public
members in addition to his designee. The Committee met in House
Hearing Room 1 on the following dates:
Wednesday, December 11, 1991
Thursday, December 19, 1991
Friday, January 10, 1992
Friday, January 24, 1992
Friday, February 7, 1992
Friday, February 21, 1992
Friday, April 3, 1992
Friday, April 17, 1992
Friday, May 29, 1992
Wednesday, July 22, 1992
Friday, September 4, 1992
Thursday, September 17, 1992
Thursday, October 1, 1992
Thursday, October 8, 1992
Friday, October 9, 1992
Tuesday, October·13, 1992
Thursday, October 15, 1992
Thursday, October 22, 1992
Monday, November 23, 1992
13
Wednesday, December 2, 1992
Tuesday, December 15, 1992
Monday, December 21, 1992
Wednesday, January 6, 1993
Minutes of the Committee meetings are on file in the
Secretary of the Senate's Office. Materials distributed to
Committee members in conjunction with the work of the Committee
are attached to the minutes of the pertinent Committee meeting.
Subcommittee meetings were held on the following dates:
March 23, 1992
August 13, 1992
August 31, 1992
September 4, 1992
September 9, 1992
September 11, 1992
September 23, 1992
September 24, 1992
September 30, 1992
These meetings were recorded but the tapes have not been
transcribed. However, the tapes are available upon request from
the Office of the Secretary of the Senate.
The Hazardous Waste Disposal Committee was created by the
Legislature to determine what are Arizona's hazardous waste
disposal needs in light of the state's acquisition of ENSCO's
hazardous waste disposal facility near Mobile, Arizona. The
state, under the direction of Governor SYmington, acquired the
ENSCO facility (now known as Estrella Point) in May 1991 after
extensive public opposition to this facility was expressed.
Public opposition principally focused on the following issues:
(1) the facility design originally called for a landfill, some
treatment and incineration of PCB'S, but without pUblic
involvement was expanded to include incineration of large
14
quantities of hazardous waste that could potentially create
unacceptable health hazards; (2) the pUblic opposed incineration;
(3) the site is within the aerial extent of a flood plain; and
(4) the facility was designed with an annual disposal capacity
which was significantly greater than required for Arizona's
annual hazardous waste generation, thereby requiring hazardous
waste to be imported to the facility from other states to sustain
its economic viability.
with the acquisition of the Estrella Point facility, the
state has banned incineration and conditionally banned the
importation of hazardous waste to this site. It is important to
note that these prohibitions apply to state-owned facilities only
(see A.R.S. S 49-903) and do not apply to privately-owned
hazardous waste disposal facilities.
Although the state now owns the Estrella Point facility, it
is not operational at this time (see Chapter VIII for a
description of the facility). Nevertheless, federal law requires
Arizona to provide hazardous waste management (treatment and
disposal) capacity for waste streams generated in-state (Section
104(c) (9), Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended in 1986). In addition, CERCLA
requires each state to report on its ability to manage its
hazardous waste streams in the Capacity Assurance Plan (CAP)
which is submitted biennially to the united States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for approval (see Chapter II).
15
Arizona selected the contractor to build and operate the
Mobile site in 1983 and entered into a contract with ENSCO, Inc.
in 1986. Prior to the passage of HB 2121 (Chapter 315, Laws
1991), state law required the director of ADEQ to contract for
the design, financing, construction and operation of a hazardous
waste disposal facility (A.R.S. S 49-903). Under current law (as
amended by HB 2121), the director is authorized, but not
required, to enter such a contract (A.R.S. S 49-903 as amended by
Chapter 315, Laws 1991).
Because the Estrella Point facility is not operational and
there are no other privately-owned or operated commercial
hazardous waste disposal facilities in this state, Governor
symington, on behalf of the state, chose to enter into an
interstate agreement for the management of its hazardous waste in
order to satisfy the CAP requirements. In February 1992 Arizona
joined the Western states Regional Agreement (Agreement) (see
Chapter II).
By signing the Agreement, Arizona can meet its CAP
obligations by demonstrating to EPA that the Western Region, in
which Arizona is a member, has the capacity to manage hazardous
waste generated by its member states. The member states are
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas,
Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah,
Washington and Wyoming, (hereinafter referred to as the "Western
States").
16
Membership in the Agreement should not be viewed as a
permanent solution to Arizona's CAP obligations. If the
hazardous waste management capacity of these states is fUlly
utilized by local or other out-of-state generators or the member
states determine that Arizona can no longer participate in the
Agreement, Arizona must provide adequate capacity for its
hazardous waste generators. Failure to do so will result in
federal sanctions against the state (withholding of Superfund
monies) (see Chapter II).
Given the foregoing, the Legislature determined in 1991 that
it was necessary to appoint a committee to make recommendations
to the Governor and the Legislature about the long-term
management of the state's hazardous waste. A similar committee
was created by Governor Rose Mofford by Executive Order No. 90-13
on July 11, 1990. This committee was known as the Hazardous
Waste Technical Advisory Committee and was made up of 27
individuals with technical expertise in hazardous waste
management. Some of the work done by the Technical Advisory
Committee was duplicated by this Committee and we refer you to
the October 1990 Report prepared by the Technical Advisory
Committee for a historical perspective on this issue (see
Appendix CC). The Technical Advisory Committee report provided a
glossary of terms, a discussion of the legislative history on
developing a state-owned site, a discussion of hazardous waste
transportation issues, an overview of technologies for treating
and disposing of hazardous waste and a discussion of risk
17
associated with the transportation and treatment of hazardous
waste.
The work of this Committee was required in addition to the
Technical Advisory Committee report for two reasons. First, at
the time the Technical Advisory Committee Report was prepared,
the ENSCO facility was scheduled to be fUlly operational by 1991.
This, of course, is not the case and consequently, the means by
which Arizona meets its CAP obligations have changed
dramatically. Second, the data used by the Technical Advisory
Committee was out-dated 1987 information. This report is being
prepared two years later and thus, this Committee has more
historical data on Arizona's generation, treatment and disposal
of hazardous waste streams. The Committee has attempted to use
that additional information to provide a more complete picture of
the production and disposal trends associated with Arizona­generated
hazardous waste.
However; this report also suffers from several serious
shortcomings. Among other things, HB 2121 provided that a three­member
Scientific Panel evaluate and report to the Committee on
hazardous waste treatment and disposal technologies. The
Committee requested that the Scientific Panel provide an array of
information regarding both human and environmental health and
economic factors associated with existing and developing
technologies as part of their reports (see Attachments 2 and 7).
The Panel provided a list of EPA-approved technologies, but
failed to provide the Committee with any scientific evaluation of
18
these technologies and provided no information on innovative/new
technologies (see Attachments 3 and 4). The Committee believes
this information is essential to an analysis of the state's
disposal options. In addition, the Committee waS unable to
fulfill its task of determining the potential reduction of
hazardous waste generation due to the implementation of pollution
prevention programs by hazardous waste generators because
Arizona's newly-implemented program (set forth in HB 2121) has
not yet provided sufficient data. Thus, the Committee is unable
to report and make recommendations on two of the four tasks
assigned to it pursuant to HB 2121.
Nevertheless, the Committee has endeavored to provide an
accurate, thorough and useful analysis of the generation,
treatment and disposal of the state's hazardous waste streams.
The Committee has identified the make-up of Arizona's hazardous
waste streams, who produces it and where it is produced in the
state. It has also identified the amounts imported to and
exported from this state. The Committee has also considered the
possible ramifications of SB 1053 passed in 1992 (concerning
potential constitutional takings by state action) on the state's
efforts to restrict operations at a hazardous waste facility
whether pUblicly or privately owned. And finally, the Committee
has made recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature
about the next steps to be taken to determine how Arizona should
manage its long-term hazardous waste needs.
19
Chapter II. Arizona's Hazardous Waste capacity Assurance
Obligations
As previously mentioned in Chapter I, under the 1986
amendments to CERCLA, each state is required to prepare a CAP
which shows that the state has adequate capacity to properly
manage all hazardous waste reasonably anticipated to be generated
(after application of pollution prevention techniques) within the
state for the next 20 years. The first CAP was required to be
filed in 1989 and biennially thereafter. EPA has the authority
to withhold federal Superfund monies for remediating contaminated
sites in those states that do not have an approved CAP (CERCLA,
Section 104(c) (9».
EPA evaluates a state's CAP based upon the magnitude of
hazardous waste generated in the state and the availability of
in-state treatment and disposal facilities. In order to
demonstrate adequate capacity, a state can do one or more of the
following: .
(1) reduce or eliminate the amount of hazardous waste it
generates;
(2) plan for the creation and permitting of hazardous waste
capacity; and/or
(3) enter into interstate or regional hazardous waste
management agreements to assure the availability of
out-of-state facilities.
EPA, Assurance of Hazardous Waste Capacity: Guidance to
state Officials, December 1988.
Arizona's 1989 CAP was approved by EPA assuming ENSCO's
hazardous waste facility would be operational by 1991. The CAP
20
was amended in 1991 to reflect the state's purchase and closure
of the ENSCO facility as well as Arizona's participation in the
Agreement (See Appendix DO). On February 14, 1992, ADEQ
submitted a second CAP to EPA on beha·lf of the state (see
Appendix Q). The 1992 CAP satisfies the requirements EPA placed
on the 1989 CAP and updates Arizona's management capacity needs
based upon: (1) the state's newly-implemented pollution
prevention program (A.R.S. § 49-961 et seq.) which qualifies
Arizona for the nationa+ly projected 10% reduction of hazardous
wastes to be accorded each state by EPA without documentation;
and (2) Arizona's participation in the Western States Regional
Agreement as of February 1992.
These steps alone do not assure Arizona's lonq-term
compliance with its CAP requirements. Arizona's participation in
the Agreement is dependent upon the other Western States having
disposal capacity which exceeds their needs in the management
categories set forth in the CAP and the willingness of other
Western States to permit Arizona to participate in the Agreement.
The Aqreement states that each member state and the federal
qovernment have the responsibility to attempt to manaqe its in­state
qeneration of hazardous waste within its own jurisdiction.
Western States "do not desire to be major exporters or importers
of waste, or to support the location of existing or emerging
treatment, storage and disposal (TSO) facilities that favor
unreasonably significant interstate movement of waste" (see
Appendix DD). By participating in the Agreement, each Western
21
state has pledged to "review any practices that may discourage
generators from managing waste within the state, or that may
encourage export of those wastes to facilities in other states."
Western states believe that each state "should maximize the in­state
management of waste by appropriate minimization of waste
generation and by development of appropriate in-state capacity
where needed and economically and environmentally viable" (see
Appendix DD).
Thus, as a condition of joining the Agreement, the Western
states requested that Arizona re-examine its statutes that (1)
ban importation of all types of hazardous waste to state-owned
facilities, and (2) ban incineration of hazardous waste at state­owned
facilities (A.R.S. S 49-903 (C) and (D». The work of this
Committee is part of that re-examination. The Western states
believe it is inequitable for Arizona to ship its hazardous waste
to them while banning imported hazardous waste to its state-owned
facilities. This objection persists because Arizona has no
public or private commercial hazardous waste disposal capacity.
For purposes of equity, Arizona should receive CAP
credit for its exempt recyclers accepting federally defined
hazardous wastes. In addition, Arizona should receive credit
from the states in the Agreement for accepting wastes classified
as hazardous in the state of origin (i.e., sludges and asbestos
from California). This credit could be significant if EPA were
to give clear guidance that recycling federally defined hazardous
22
waste and treatment/disposal of state-defined hazardous waste
would count toward a state's capacity (see Attachments 8 and 9).
The issue of Arizona's status in the Agreement is likely to
be raised while ADEQ is preparing the next CAP submittal which is
due in October, 1993. The next WGA meeting is in March of 1993
and the other members to the Agreement are awaiting the outcome
of this Committee report and any legislative action that may
result from its recommendations to determine the need to
reevaluate Arizona's membership in the Agreement.
In summary, the state currently faces the legal and moral
challenge of developing a long-term plan to assure Arizona's
ability to manage its current and future generation of hazardous
waste.
23
Chapter III.
Backqround
Arizona's Hazardous Waste stream
In-state Generation/Importation/Exportation
In order to make recommendations on Arizona's needs for
hazardous waste treatment and disposal it is imperative that we
understand the state's current hazardous waste stream. That
stream consists of wastes qenerated in Arizona as well as wastes
imported into the state. 1 Moreover, to understand what our
treatment and disposal needs are we must also know how much of
that waste is being exported to out-of-state treatment and
disposal facilities. This chapter will present available data
which portrays that waste stream.
Hazardous waste consists of various discarded materials
often generated in industrial processes that pose or potentially
pose a substantial risk to human health or the environment.
Hazardous waste is regulated under the federal Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901, et seq.
The EPA has authorized Arizona through the ADEQ to administer and
enforce these regulations. With limited exceptions, ADEQ has
adopted the federal hazardous waste rules by reference (A.C.C.
R18-901 et seq.). Wastes that are considered to be -hazardous"
are sUbject to federal and state regulations governing its
handling, storage, treatment and disposal.
lFor CAP purposes, Arizona is only responsible for hazardous
wastes generated within its borders.
24
Reportinq Requirements
ADEQ tracks hazardous waste through two documents, the
Facility Annual Reports (FARS) and the hazardous waste manifests.
The FARs must be filed by all Large Quantity Generators (LQGs),
(i.e., businesses that generate at least 1000 kilograms (2,200
pounds) of hazardous waste in any given month). The FARs
describe the activities that generate the hazardous waste, the
type of waste, the quantity of waste and the location and
technology used by the generator to dispose of the waste. For
purposes of providing information for this report, ADEQ analyzed
the 1990 FARs.
The hazardous waste manifest is a federally mandated
document that records the amount and type of hazardous waste
shipped off site to storage, treatment and disposal facilities.
Manifests are required to be filed with ADEQ by all generators
that produce hazardous waste in amounts in excess of 100
kilograms (220 pounds) in any given month (A.A.C. R18-8-262.G).
For the purposes of this report, ADEQ analyzed the 1990 manifests
for all Small Quantity Generators (SQGs), businesses that
generated 100 - 1000 kilograms in anyone month.
It is important to note that entities which generate less
than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste in any given month are not
required to fill out manifests or file FARs. Known as
Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators (CESQGs), these
small businesses are, for the most part, exempt from the
hazardous waste laws; there is no readily available information
25
concerning the types and quantities of hazardous waste they
generate. In 1990, 538 CESQGs reported to ADEQ that they handled
hazardous wastes. However, these generators are not required to
report how much or what type of hazardous waste they generate.
In addition, the federal and state laws do not require
reporting on household hazardous waste. However, based upon some
preliminary 1991 and 1992 information from cities in Arizona and
national research on programs to collect such wastes, we are able
to present a guesstimate on Arizona's household hazardous waste
stream.
Arizona-Generated Waste
In 1990 there were 251 LQGS in Arizona that qenerated a
total of 100,814,244 pounds (50,407 tons) of hazardous waste and
341 SQGs that qenerated 2,053,312 pounds (1,026 tons) of
hazardous waste for a total of 102,867,056 pounds (51,433 tons)
of hazardous waste (see Appendix A).
Of the hazardous waste generated in 1990, one-quarter or
28,326,000 pounds (14,163 tons) were noone-time waste." One-time
waste is generated as a result of a site cleanup or corrective
action taken in response to a hazardous material spill or
release. We can anticipate that one-time waste will be generated
every year due to federal and state superfund cleanups and RCRA
corrective actions. The volume and type of this one-time waste
will fluctuate and is unpredictable. For example, in the October
1990 Report, ADEQ projected a 1989 one-time generation of 200
26
tons (400,000 pounds) of hazardous waste. The actual 1989 data,
which became available after the Report was pUblished, showed
that in 1989 one company, Miller oelinting, generated 1,659 tons
(33,188,000 pounds) of one-time waste from cleaning up on-site
contamination. In 1990, this same company generated 14,163 tons
(28,326,000 pounds) of hazardous waste due to continuing on-site
cleanup activities. In 1991 Miller Oelinting generated no
hazardous waste, having completed the cleanup of its site.
However, in 1991 there were 6,497,000 pounds (3,248 tons) of one-time
hazardous waste (mostly hazardous waste contaminated soils)
generated by other companies (AOEQ, 1991).
Ninety-six percent of Arizona's total hazardous waste stream
in 1990 consisted of the following twelve wastes(see Appendix C):
=================================================================
WASTE CODE
AMOUNT/LBS.
DESCRIPTION OF WASTE
=================================================================
0001
0002
0006
0007
0008
0018
0039
FOOl
Ignitable waste (capable of causing
fire, i.e., used oil, spent solvent)
corrosive waste (corrodes st~el i.e.,
acidic wastes, pickle liquor used
to clean steel in manufacturing processes
Cadmium waste
Chromium waste
Lead waste
Benzene waste
Tetrachloroethylene (TCE) waste
Spent halogenated solvents used in
degreasing
27
7,186,648
38,306,177
2,219,883
4,510,218
3,290,751
1,212,594
1,446,613
4,216,089
F002
F003
F005
F006
Spent halogenated solvents (i.e.,
tetrachloroethylene)
Spent non-halogenated solvents (i.e.,
xylene)
Spent non-halogenated solvents
(i. e., toluene)
Sludge from electroplating operations
TOTAL
3,192,064
3,715,759
1,530,727
27,805,248
98,632,363
Arizona's manifested hazardous waste stream was generated by
592 generators but the majority of the waste (60%) was generated
by 44 generators (See Appendix D). Each generator is identified
with an EPA identification number by geographic location.
Several of the 44 largest generators are owned by the same
company. ThUS, while there are 44 generators, they are owned by
36 companies. These companies represent a variety of industries
that can be described by general categories (see Table 1). For
example, five waste handling companies generated 36,413,295
pounds, or 18,206 tons, of hazardous waste in 1990. This
represents 49% of all recurrent hazardous waste generated in
1990, making this industry potentially the largest generator of
hazardous waste in Arizona. 2 Ten electronic manufacturers were
also in the top 44, making electric manufacturing the second
largest generator of hazardous waste in the state. These two
2 It is unclear, however, how much of this waste is "double
counted." In other words, we do not know how much waste is from a
primary generator that has been picked up by the waste handler and
is now being counted again under the waste handler's manifest. The
new FAR reporting format currently being utilized by ADEQ will
provide information to clarify this issue.
28
DISTRIBUTION OF THE 12 LARGEST RCRA WASTE CATEGORIES
IN ARIZONA BY THE 44 LARGEST GENERATORS - IN POUNDS
TABLE 1
TABLE 1-0ISTRIBUTION OF THE 12 LARGEST RCRA WASTE CATEGORIES IN ARIZONA BY THE 44 LARGEST GENERATORS
*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
EPAIO COMPANY NAME 0001 0002 0006 0007 0008 0018 0039 F001 F002 F003 F005 F006 OTHER TOTALS
*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
AZD980818330 NELCO TECHNOLOGY 35,718 1,764,830 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35,718 0 79,315 0 1,915,581
AZD043848050 MOTOROLA, INC 215,859 56,042 50 0 1,250 0 0 7,470 50,854 214,094 2,050 0 259,884 807,553
AZD008399636 MOTOROLA, INC. 12,186 20,423 10 0 13 0 0 74,381 1,584 28,840 0 137,640 465 275,542
AZD982519746 3M TUCSON DATA STORAGE 73,854 0 0 453,682 0 0 0 0 0 45,753 17,154 0 17,156 607,599
AZD980735179 NORPLEX OAK INC/ALLIED 0 17,188 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 385,439 402,627
AZD981579634 QUALITY PRINTED CIRCUIT 252,398 2,518 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100,600 2 355,518
AZDOO9004177 MOTOROLA, INC. 207,100 9,504 0 9,785 17,267 0 0 233,733 668 376,902 237,656 23,640 141,087 1,257,342
AZD980896310 CONTINENAL CIRCUITS COR 11,475 1,857,335 0 0 7,282 0 0 0 0 0 0 315,340 5,564 2,196,996
AZD091235457 INTEL CORP PHX CAMPUS 191,220 3,715 0 2,035 740 0 0 0 0 10,120 0 76,050 4,525 288,405
AZD982503385 DYNACO WEST CORP 800 85,168 0 0 52,993 0 0 433 579 800 0 164,120 961 305,854
AZT000623819 DIGITAL EQUIP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,086 156 156 336,162 0 342,560
AZD981371628 CIRCUIT TECHNOLOGY INC 0 234,400 0 0 26,240 0 0 0 0 0 0 121,740 1,400 383,780
AZD063274609 CONTINENTAL CIRCUITS 38,260 533,061 0 0 40,153 0 0 0 0 42 3n 261,240 1,583 874,711
.••.•..•. _----_ ....... _-------------- ... _---- .. ----------------------.-------------.----------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRONIC MFG: 1,038,8704,584,184 60 465,502 145,938 0 0 316,017 59,771 712,425 ·257,388 1,615,847 818,066 10,014,068
--------------.--------_.-------------------------_._.----------------_._----.-_.---------------------------------------------_-------._._.--------------------------------------
AZD089308803 SAFETY KLEEN CORP 803,063 0 31,293 15,860 17,483 785,318 803,459 0 60,674 9,758 9,758 0 436,967 2,973,633
AZD980892897 SAFETY KLEEN CORP 300,470 0 4,381 2,941 2,789 300,714 302,063 0 . 21,380 0 0 0 4,474 939,212
AZD049318009 RECYCLING RESOURCES, INC 593,288 116,983 0 387,348 123,606 150 392,384 347,713 276,535 212,096 195,299 0 340,789 2,986,191
AZD009015389 ROMIC 1,184,2892,383,961 31,389 90,298 31,639 0 0 931,226 1,145,334 753,198 125,058 1,309 901,779 7,579,480
AZD089304216 VAN WATERS &ROGERS 6,032 4,049 0 0 0 0 557 0 23,086 6,287 5,730 0 263,838 309,579
AZD980735500 WORLD RESOURCES CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 21,625,200 o 21,625,200
---------_.-._------------------------------------------------------------------------------_ .. ------------.-.--_._--.--_ .••..•••....•........
WASTE HANDLER: 2,887,142 2,504,993 67,063 496,447 175,5171,086,182 1,498,463 1,278,939 1,527,009 981,339 335,84521,626,509 1,947,84736,413,295
AZD097113856 LAMDBA ELECTRONiCS OIV 10,250 155,600 0 154,950 1,750 0 0 13,500 0 0 0 28,500 0 364,550
AZD008398505 CHEM RESEARCH CO 0 0 0 273,640 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,200 0 280,840
AZT050010636 GILBERT ENGINEERING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,476 0 0 0 248,990 0 263,466
AZD981425010 TALLEY DEFENSE SYS 1,242 69 156,273 65 95 0 0 23,695 504 477 0 0 21,246 203,666
......•.•....................................................................................................................................
FABRICATED METAL IND.: 11,492 155,669 156,273 428,655 1,845 0 0 51,671 504 477 0 284,690 21,246 1,112,522
~ ..••.•...••.•.....•..•.....•••.•.••...•.•••••.....•.• .•••....••••.•.....•.•••.....•.•.•.•.....••• _............. _.-_ ............•..........•... _.... _._ .. _... __ ......... _.... _....
AZDOO9OO4961 HONEYWELL, INC.
AZT000624445 HONEYWELL-CHANDLER
21,892 nO,046
o 170,716
oo
oo
o
o
oo
o 210,418
o 2,000
o
1,000
52,507
2,000
16,224 1,144,620
o 160,320
o 2,165,707
154 336,190
................• - _ _ __ .. _ - -_ ~._ ....•...•-.. _.. _ _ - .. _..•................... _._-
NAVIGATION PRODUCT: 21,892 890,762 o o o o o 212,418 . 1,000 54,507 16,224 1,304,940 154 2,501,897
........• -.. _._ -.-._ _.- .. _ --- _.. _ __ .. _---._-_ -_.-.-._ _--_ .. -_.- _ -_ _--_._ .. _- -._ _.. __ .. _._-_ __ ._._ -.. __ _ .
AZD982471062 TRW SAFETY SYSTEMS 9 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 323,517 323,623
AZ0018517698 GARRETT PNEUMATIC SYS 23,443 1,326 0 2,701 260 0 0 .61,297 260 3,439 137,948 1,875 105,076 337,625
AZDOO9000050 GARRETT ENGINE DIV 17,701 350 400 1,027 4,650 0 0 448,100 350 91,302 92,102 263,974 186,1n 1,106,128
........ ----_ ..... _..... __ ..... _--. __ ._-- ...... -... _-- .. --_ .. __ ._ .. _- .. __ ._._-------------_ ... _... _._ ..... _--_ .... _--_ .. _... -.-. __ . __ .- .. _-_ ..
TRANSPORTATION EQUIP.: 41,153 1,765. 400 3,n8 4,910 0 0 509,397 610 94,749 230,050 265,849 614,765 1,767,376
.. _._._--- __ ._-_ .. __ __ -._.- __ .. __ .. -_.-._--_ .. _._-_._-_ __ .. _._ -.. _.. -- - _._ .. _--_._ __ --_ __ __ ._ __ ._.. _ _ _.. _._ .. __ .
AZT000611426 CAPITAL CASTING-CHANDLE 0 0 950,760 0 950,760 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,901,520
AZD000625715 GOULD INC FOIL DIV 0 34,430 8,850 14,002 42,230 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,313,007 11,350 1,423,869
AZD982435484 NATIONAL AIRCRAFT, INC. 0 0 549,180 0 549,180 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,098,360
AZD085453603 CAPITAL CASTINGS INC 0 0 110,340 0 110,340 ·0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 220,680 ._----_ .. -_ .. _. __ . __ ... _-------._--_._--_ ....... _- .. _._ .. -. __ .- .. _---_ .. __ .. __ ... _----_ .. __ .. __ ... - .. -_ .. _.----_ ... _._.------- ..... _--_ .... _..
PRIMARY METAL MFG: ' 0 34,430 1,619,130 14,002 1,652,510 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,313,007 11,350 4,644,4209
.. __ . __ ._ .. _----_._- _._.- _.. _-_ _--_ ---_ _-_ __ . __ ._-_._ .. _ -._----- __ .. _----_ .. __ _---_._ -....•..... - .. __ ._-_ -_ -._----_ _ -
January 6, 1993
TABLE 1 • DISTRIBUTION OF THE 12 LARGEST RCRA WASTE CATEGORIES IN ARIZONA BY THE 44 LARGEST GENERATORS
t*****************************************************.********************.******••*********************•••*********************************************************************
EPAID COMPANY NAME D001 0002 0006 0007 0008 0018 0039 F001 F002 F003 F005 F006 OTHER TOTALS
-**********************************************••******************.*************************************************************************************************************
_. e_._. . .·_. __ ------------_.----------------------------------------._---------------- •... _--. . _
'Z4572190029 LUKE WASTE ANNEX 41,927 2,655 13,505 11,188 196,908 0 0 363 814 55,731 44,448 0 2,816 370,355
'Z8170024493 MARINE CORPS AIR STA 132,544 134,890 21 162,708 50 0 0 170,934 950 13 1,034 0 53,144 656,288
"Z7570028582 WI LLIAMS AFB 52,037 43,700 93,451 26,752 91,069 0 0 1,245 6,489 298 2,923 0 82 318,046
"Z0570024133 LUKE AFB 47,971 1,356 10,236 6,491 238,188 0 0 363 814 55,615 43,837 0 5,462 410,333
-------------------------------------------------.---------------------.---------------------------._-------- .... _-----------------------------
MILITARY FACILITIES: 274,479 182,601 117,213 207,139 526,215 0 0 172,905 9,067 111,657 92,242 0 61,504 1,755,022
------------------------_.----._-----------_.-------------.----------.--------------_.----------.-------------------------------------_ .. _-----._--_ .... -. __ .--------------------
"Z0074452426 SRP NAVAJO GEN STA
"ZT000624429 APS/PALO VERDE NUCLEAR
PUBLIC UTILITY:
2,098 633 547 413,362 3,063 1,236 0 5,367 5,037 18,1n 2,922 0 405,998 858,440
12,224 4,655 15,507 10,539 14,827 3,436 0 18,470 18,010 6,904 6,374 0 115,744 226,690
-------------.---------------------------------------------------------_._----------------._._---------------._-----.-------------.-----------
14,322 5,288 16,054 423,901 17,890 4,672 0 23,837 23,047 25,081 9,296 0 521,742 1,085,130
'Z0008394397 AZ PORTLAND CEMENT CO 2,580 0 0 988,200 0 0 0 0 1,500 0 0 0 0 992,280
"ZT000617548 TEXACO INC 0 0 0 658,729 60,219 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 718,948
"Z0003987997 HEXAL CORP 85,864 2,655 0 15,750 0 0 0 0 70,999 67,564 67,564 0 37,999 348,395
"Z0982041907 HEXCEL ADVANCED P,OO FA 68,589 1,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 43,001 73,844 52,245 0 0 238,878
"Z0009005422 DARLING RE CO. 93,826 70,183 1,700 3,390 28,383 0 0 1n,764 19,488 16,209 13,228 129,908 125,467 679,546
"ZD042018689 ROGERS CORP-CIG 37,462 145,859 0 113,235 151,295 0 0 22,296 6,1n 34,500 31,532 109,969 25,813 678,138 .... -_ .. _... -... -_. __ ._-_.---- ........ --- .. _.. ---_ .. _- .. _-_._---------_._-------_.----------_.-._-.-- .. ------_ .. _. __ ._---_ .... _._----_ ... _----
OTHERS: 288,321 219,897 1,700 1,779,304 239,897 0 0 200,060 141,165 192,117 164,569 239,8n 189,279 3,656,185
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••::=a•••=:::=:=_::=:
TOTAL FOR 44 LOGS: 4,577,671 8,579,589 1,977,893 3,818,678 2,764,722 1,090,854 1,498,463 2,765,244 1,762,173 2,172,352 1,105,61426,650,7194,185,95362,949,924
•••••••••••••s:••••••: •���••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••:.::=:••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••======.=====.==•••:2.=•••••••••••:=:.======.=====.================
January 6, 1993
industries produced 74% of the hazardous waste generated by the
44 LQGs. The wastes produced by the waste handlers and
electronic manufacturers were mostly corrosive wastes, sludge
from metal plating operators and ignitable wastes.
The remaining companies in the top 44 that generated
hazardous waste can be categorized as follows (see Appendices B
and D):
Three primary metal manufacturers, such as steel foundries,
generated pickle liquor and sludge with metal contaminates
(4,644,429 pounds or 2,322 tons);
One company at two facilities that manufacture navigation
products that generated mostly corrosive wastes and spent
solvents (2,501,897 pounds or 1,250 tons);
Three companies in the transportation equipment industry
produced degreasing solvents, metals and sludges (2,446,922
pounds or 1,223 tons);
Three military facilities generating all types of wastes
(1,755,021 pounds or 877 tons);
Four manufacturers of fabricated metals generated degreasing
solvents, electroplating wastes and sludge contaminated with
metals and cyanides (1,112,522 pounds or 556 tons);
Two electric services facilities generated chromium, lead
and ignitable wastes (1,085,130 pounds or 542 tons);
One cement company generated chromium waste (922,280 pounds
or 461 tons);
One petroleum bulk station generated chromium and lead
wastes (718,948 pounds or 359 tons);
One plastics products manufacturer generated ignitable,
corrosive, cadmium and lead wastes (678,138 pounds or 339
tons);
One miscellaneous manufacturing company generated ignitable
wastes (348,395 pounds or 174 tons); and
31
One coated fabrics facility generated ignitable, corrosive
and chromium wastes (2,38,878 pounds or 119 tons).
Not surprisingly, Arizona's hazardous waste generators are
concentrated in its two largest counties: 65% of LQGs and 74% of
SQGs are located in Maricopa County, while 17% of the LQGs and
15% of the SQGs are in Pima County (see Map 1 and Appendix A).
Of the top 44 companies, all but three are located in Maricopa or
Pima Counties (see Map 2 and Legend).
Household Hazardous Waste
As mentioned above, household hazardous waste (HHW) is a
component of the state's hazardous waste stream. Available data
shows that in 1991 and 1992, 415,802 pounds (2,079 tons) of HHW
were collected by the cities of Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe
and Tucson (see Appendices E and Z). HHW generally consists of
the following: paint with hazardous waste constituents; oil;
anti-freeze; and batteries. 52% of the volume of the HHW
collected was classified as RCRA hazardous waste and managed by
various technologies (i.e., recycling, fuel substitution,
neutralization processes).
The data above regarding HHW are estimates by Mesa, Phoenix,
Scottsdale and Tempe based on one-time collection events in 1991.
Tucson data is based upon collections at its HHW facility for the
year 1991-1992. Local collection data vary from city to city.
For example, the city of Phoenix estimated that each household
generated just under 30 pounds per year while the city of Tucson
32
MAPl
i';~mber of LQG and Volume of Hazardous Waste Generated by County
1990
APACHE
3 LCG
202,307 p:url;
(101 tons)
COCHISE
5 LCG
278,072 pounds
(139 tons)
F
NAVAJO
3 u;:x:;
77,149 JDJIE
(38 tons)
SANTA
CRUZ
GILA
2 UX;
\ 142,427 pounds
r----..:.. (71 tons)
PIKA
42 u.:x;
6,919,138 pounds
3,459 tons)
7 UX; (*)
PINAL
2~.53Q,489.poUnds
(14,765 tOns)
AARICOPA
163 LCG
60,985,373 ~
(30,493 to )'----......
COCONINO
8 LCG
1,238,408. pounds
~ (619 tons)
~
YAVAPAI
4 LCG
229,762 pounds
(115 tons)
lA PAZ
1 LCG
4 ,109 pY.mds
(2 tnr'-s)
11----1
YlJJ--1A.
7 UX;
996,790 pounds
(4.98 tons)
MOHAVE
4 LCG
141,4.55 pounds
(70 tons)
T) 28,864,017 pounds (14,432 tons)
of this an:JUI1t was a -one-tine- leSte.
2 u;:x:;
68,866 pounds
(34 tons)
MAP 2
Distribution of the Largest 44 Generators by County
1990
o
- I
GRAHAX
COCHISE
NAVAJO
GILA
SANTA
CRUZ
f)-CD
PIMA
COCONINO
CD
PINAL
0-0
KARICOPA
APACHE
YAVAPAI
~
j
LA PAZ
YUMA
·MOHAVE
• See Legend
following this
map for facility names
corresponding to the numbers above.
J(
/\
MAP2 LEGEND
1990
44 LARGE QUANTITY GENERATORS --*****------------*...** •••••• - •••••••• _*--._.*.-..-.-*--*._.*---*--_._.**-*-*-_._.-.
NO EPAID COMPANY NAKE CITY COUNTY POUNDS TONS --*-*-******--*._-----*_._.._--_._._--_ _---_.-.---**--*----*--_._.---*--**._--*
1 AZD0744S2426 SRP NAVAJO GEN STA
2 AZT000611426 CAPITAL CASTING-CHANDLER
3 AZD00062S715 GOULD INC FOIL DIV
4 AZD982041907 HEXCEL ADVANCED PROD FAC
5 AZT00062444S HONEYWELL-CHANDLER
6 AZD0912354S7 INTEL CORP PHX CAMPUS
7 AZD98073S179 NORPLEX OAK INC/ALLIED
8 AZD042018689 ROGERS CORP-CIG
9 AZD00901S389 ROMIC
10 AZT050010636 GILBERT ENGINEERING
11 AZ4572190029 LUKE WASTE ANNEX
12 AZ0570024133 LUKE AFB
13 AZD043848050 MOTOROLA, INC
14 AZD981425010 TALLEY DEFENSE SYS
15 AZD982471062 TRW SAFETY SYSTEMS
16 AZD008398505 CHEM RESEARCH CO
17 AZD981371628 CIRCUIT TECHNOLOGY INC
18 AZD980896310 CONTlNENAL CIRCUITS CORP
19 AZD063274609 CONTINENTAL CIRCUITS
20 AZD009000050 GARRETT ENGINE DIV
21 AZD009004961 HONEYWELL, INC.
22 AZD009004177 MOTOROLA, INC.
23 AZD981579634 OOALITY PRINTED CIRCUITS
24 AZD049318009 RECYCLING RESOURCES, INC
25 AZD089308803 SAFETY KLEEN CORP
26 AZDOS9304216 VAN WATERS & ROGERS
27 AZD980735500 WORLD RESOURCES CO
28 AZD008399636 MOTOROLA, INC.
29 AZDOS5453603 CAPITAL CASTINGS INC
30 AZT000623819 DIGITAL EOOIP
31 AZD9S2503385 DYNACO WEST CORP
32 AZD018517698 GARRETT PNEUMATIC SYS
33 AZD980818330 NELCO TECHNOLOGY
34 AZ757002S5S2 WILLIAMS AFB
35 AZT000624429 APS/PALO VERDE NUCLEAR
36 AZDOOS394397 AZ PORTLAND CEMENT CO
37 AZD~C2:19746 3M TUCSON DATA STORAGE
38 AZD009005422 DARLING RE CO.
39 AZD0971138S6 LAMeBA ELECTRONICS DIV
40 AZD9S2435484 NATIONAL AIRCRAFT, INC.
41 AZD980892897 SAFETY ~EEN CORP
42 AZT000617548 TEXACO INC
43 AZD003987997 HEXAL CORP
44 AZ8170024493 MARINE CORPS AIR STA
PAGE
CHANDLER
CHANDLER
CHANDLER
CHANDLER
CHANDLER
CHANDLER
CHANDLER
CHANDLER
GLENDALE
GLENDALE
LUKE AFB
MESA
MESA
MESA
PHX
PHX
PHX
PHX
PHX
PHX
PBX
PBX
PBX
PHX
PBX
PBX
SCOTTSDALE
TEMPE
TEMPE
TEMPE
TEMPE
TEMPE
WILLIAMS AFB
WINTERSBURG
RILLITO
TUCSON
TUCSON
TUCSON
TUCSON
TUCSON
TUCSON
CASA GRANDE
YUMA
COCONINO
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
MARICOPA
PIMA
PIMA
PIMA
PIMA
PIMA
PIMA
PIMA
PINAL
YUMA
858,440
1,901,520
1,423,869
238,878
336,190
288,405
402,627
678,138
7,579,480
263,466
370,355
410,333
807,553
203,666
323,623
280,840
383,780
2,196,996
874,711
1,106,128
2,165,707
1,257,342
355,518
2,986,191
2,973,633
309,579
21,625,200
275,542
220,680
342,560
305,854
337,625
1,915,581
318,046
226,690
992,280
607,599
679,546
364,550
1,098,360
939,212
718,948
348,395
656,288
429
951
712
119
168
144
201
339
3,790
132
185
205
404
102
162
140
192
1,098
437
553
1,083
629
178
1,493
1,487
155
10,813
138
110
171
153
169
958
159
113
496
304
340
182
549
470
359
174
328
information indicates that each household generated 12 pounds per
year. Nationally, estimates vary from 15 to 20 pounds per
household per year. In addition to these variances, it is
unknown if the HHW collected in one day by the City of Phoenix
had been "stored" for longer than two years, or if the city of
Tucson's estimates reflect the actual annual contribution of
households to its program. Given these considerations, it is
only possible to estimate the volume of HHW generated in Arizona
as ranging from 16,042,840 pounds (8,021 tons) to 40,230,000
pounds (20,115 tons).
This limited analysis of HHW suggests that such waste may
significantly increase the amount of hazardous waste generated in
Arizona. Due to the lack of data regarding HHW, however, further
analysis is needed to better understand its true impact on the
state's hazardous waste stream.
Imports
In addition to the hazardous waste generated in Arizona, the
state's hazardous waste stream includes a significant amount of
hazardous waste imported from other states. In 1990, Arizona
accepted 38,902,624 pounds (19,451 tons) of hazardous waste from
out of state. (This does not include state-defined hazardous
waste such as sludge from California for which ADEQ has no
records). These wastes were received by two companies, World
Resources and Cyprus Miami" (see Appendix H). Both facilities are
presently deemed "exempt" recyclers under federal hazardous waste
36
laws. In other words, these facilities receive hazardous waste
under manifest and process it to recover valuable materials. The
recycling process itself is exempt from the hazardous waste
permitting requirements for treatment. While exempt from the
RCRA treatment permit requirements, both facilities are subject
to all other air, water and solid waste regulations and permits.
Both facilities primarily receive wastewater treatment
sludges from electroplating operations (F006). These wastes
contain varying percentages of precious metals such as gold and
silver. The wastes are received from 23 states, including
Arizona, with 63% of the total coming from companies in
California (see Table 2).
37
Table 2
Amount of Hazardous Waste Received by
Two Major Recyclers, by state of Origin
1990
=================================================================
ORIGIN WORLD RESOURCES CYPRUS MIAMI TOTAL POUNDS PCT
=================================================================
CA
AZ
OR
CO
PR
UT
WA
MN
TX
WI
OH
MO
NE
AL
IA
10
AR
NY
MS
NV
IL
TN
OK
17,597,720
4,530,880
1,383,180
1,008,380
1,083,720
908,080
920,140
575,280
155,360
417,940
388,500
203,680
337,480
278,040
169,240
o
132,220
72,240
67,520
61,660
43,200
o
22,900
6,816,769
418,475
o
162,720
o
99,440
o
249,250
337,101
oo
156,640
oo
65,835
199,720
ooo
oo
39,314
o
24,414,489
4,949,355
1,383,180
1,171,100
1,083,720
1,007,520
920,140
824,530
492,461
417,940
388,500
360,320
337,480
278,040
235,075
199,720
132,220
72,240
67,520
61,660
43,200
39,314
22,900
62.76
12.72
3.56
3.01
2.79
2.59
2.37
2.12
1.27
1. 07
1. 00
0.93
0.87
0.71
0.60
0.51
0.34
0.19
0.17
0.16
0.11
0.10
0.06
=================================================================
Total 30,357,360 8,545,264 38,902,624 100.00
=================================================================
The hazardous waste shipped to World Resources is blended to
concentrate the precious metals. The material is then shipped to
several out-of-state smelters. Of the 30,357,360 pounds (15,178
tons) received by World Resources in 1990 (see Table 2), the
company shipped 21,625,200 pounds (10,812 tons) of hazardous
waste out-of-state. Of the 21,625,200 pounds (10,812 tons),
17,499,200 pounds (8,749 tons) were shipped to the Phelps Dodge
in New Mexico and the remaining 4,126,000 pounds (2,063 tons)
38
were shipped to Finland. The discrepancy between World
Resources' imports and exports (8,732,160 pounds or 4,366 tons)
may be explained by the fact that the available data is for
calendar year 1990 which would not account for those wastes
imported to the facility in 1990 but exported in 1991.ADEQ is
performing a mass balance to ensure that all wastes imported by
World Resources are properly disposed.
All of the 8,545,264 pounds (4,272 tons) of hazardous waste
shipped to Cyprus Miami were processed through the smelter to
recover the precious metals from the waste.
Exports
Arizona exported 58,410,468 pounds (29,205 tons) of
hazardous waste to 23 states plus Finland and British Columbia
(see Appendix I). The waste is exported by a combination of
individual generators and waste handlers that collect waste from
Arizona generators and export that waste. The total includes the
waste exported by World Resources which accounts for 37% of all
exports. Two states receive more than 50% of Arizona's wastes:
New Mexico (29.96%) and California (23.54%). While shipments to
California were directed to 34 different treatment, storage,
disposal (TSD) facilities, the shipment to New Mexico was
destined to one facility, Phelps Dodge in Hurley. Table 3
provides a list of all states and countries that received
hazardous waste from Arizona and poundage received.
39
Table 3
Quantity of Hazardous Waste Received by state and/or Country
Generated in Arizona
1990
=================================================================
No. Receiving state Amount Received from Arizona
(Pounds) (Pet)
=================================================================
l. New Mexico 17,499,200.00 29.96
2. California 13,751,617.55 23.54
3. Texas 4,993,064.06 8.55
4. FINLAND 4,126,000.00 7.06
5. Kansas 3,244,770.60 5.56
6. New Jersey 3,081,415.00 5.28
7. Utah 3,029,379.10 5.19
8. Nevada 2,715,247.00 4.65
9. Oklahoma 2,507,220.00 4.29
10. Louisiana 1,531,334.00 2.62
1l. Missouri 677,208.00 1.16
12. Illinois 445,786.43 0.76
13. Tennessee 270,999.74 0.46
14. Arkansas 210,544.55 0.36
15. Idaho 170,120.00 0.29
16. Minnesota 53,835.00 0.09
17. Colorado 35,350.00 0.06
18. Florida 26,734.79 0.05
19. Michigan 12,500.00 0.02
20. New York 9,789.00 0.02
2l. Indiana 7,000.00 0.01
22. Pennsylvania 5,550.92 0.01
23. Oregon 3,033.00 0.01
24. Georgia 1,519.16 0.00
25. BRITISH COLUMBIA 1,250.00 0.00
=================================================================
Total 58,410,467.85 100.00
=================================================================
Summary
To understand Arizona's needs for treatment and disposal, it
is important to first identify Arizona's primary or recurrent
waste stream. Based upon 1990 ADEQ data, gross assumptions
concerning HHW and unreported data from "conditionally exempt"
generators (CESQG), we can conclude that hazardous waste
40
generated in Arizona on a recurrent basis (excluding one-time
waste) is as follows:
1) 102,867,056 pounds
-28,326,000 pounds
74,541,056 pounds
Total
One-time
(See Page 26)
(See Page 26)
2) HHW = 16,042,840 pounds (8,021 tons) to 40,230,000
pounds (20,115 tons) (See Page 36)
Ninety-six percent of Arizona's recurrent hazardous waste
stream consists of twelve (12) types (see Table 2). 49% of this
waste stream is generated by five waste handling companies.
However, one company, World Resources, accounts for 29%
(21,625,200 pounds or 10,812 tons) of the recurrent waste stream.
Because World Resources does not generate new hazardous waste in
Arizona (it handles wastes from other companies and ships it out
of state for recovery of precious metals) we can subtract its
amount from the total recurrent waste stream for which Arizona
must have disposal and treatment capacity. Thus, Arizona's
recurrent waste stream is 38,127,761 pounds or 19,063 tons of
which the 43 top generators (see Table 1, eliminating World
Resources from the list) produce 79% (41,324,724 pounds or 20,671
tons).
It should also be emphasized that the estimated volumes of
HHW are based on limited, preliminary data and furthermore, under
current state law, disposing of HHW is prohibited at state-owned
hazardous waste facilities (A.R.S. S49-903 (B».
41
Pinally, it must be noted that without additional research
there is no way to quantify or verify the double counting problem
previously mentioned when calculating waste generated by waste
handlers (other than World Resources) in Arizona. The new PAR
reporting format currently utilized by ADEQ will provide better
information on the double counting issue. Additionally, research
is needed to predict with greater certainty the type and volume
of one-time waste Arizona will generate in the future (see Page
26). While the above information is based on 1990 data and more
current information is necessary to make final predictions, there
is no evidence to suggest that the future composition of
Arizona's waste stream will alter sUbstantially from the present.
42
Chapter xv. Arizona's Xncinerable Hazardous Waste stream
Under HB 2121, the committee was charged with identifying
the amount of Arizona-generated hazardous waste likely to be
incinerated and comparing that amount with Arizona's total waste
stream. Because of federal law and ADEQ reporting requirements,
identifying the amount of hazardous waste actually incinerated,
as opposed to that which could be incinerated, is complicated and
may not be totally accurate.
RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs)
Under RCRA, the EPA established treatment technologies that
must be applied to hazardous waste to limit the waste's toxicity
and volume (see Appendix J). Known as the Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDRs), these regulations mandate the application of
specific technologies (i.e., incineration) to particular wastes
while permitting other wastes to be treated by several
technologies (see Attachment 1).
There were 13,348,329 pounds (6,674 tons) of waste generated
by both LQGs and SQGs that had to be, or optimally could be,
incinerated in Arizona in 1990. Of this amount, Arizona 7 s LQGs
generated only 12,555,736 pounds (6,278 tons) of recurrent
hazardous waste that required incineration, unless the waste was
recycled. This waste stream was generated by just 36 facilities
(see Table 4). Based upon the 1990 FARs we know that 5,761,286
43
1990
TABLE 4 - GENERATION OF INCINERABLE WASTE BY 44 LQG'S
***************************************.*****************************************************************************************************************************
5 TYPES OF OTHER
5 TYPES OF INCINERABLE WASTE
INCINERABLE WASTE LBS OTHER LBS " OF
EPAID COMPANY NAME 0001 F001 F002 F003 F005 WASTE " OF TOTAL WASTE TOTAL TOTALS
*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************
AZDOO9015389 ROMIC 1,184,289 931,226 1,145,334 753,198 125,058 4,139,105 54.61" 3,440,375 41.43% 7,579,480
AZD043848050,AZD008399636,AZDOO9004177 MOTOROLA, INC 435,145 315,584 53,106 619,836 239,706 1,663,377 71.07% 1,304,060 55.n% 2,340,437
AZD049318009 RECYCLING RESOURCES, INC 593,288 347,713 276,535 212,096 195,299 1,624,931 54.41" 1,361,260 45.59% 2,986,191
AZD089308803,AZD980892897 SAFETY KLEEN CORP 1,103,533 0 82,054 9,758 9,758 1,205,103 30.80" 2,307,742 58.98" 3,912,845
AZD009000050,AZD018517698 GARRETT ENGINE DIV 41,144 509,397 610 94,741 230,05U 875,942 60.67% 467,811 32.40" 1,443,753
AZD009005422 DARLING RE CO. 93,826 177,764 19,488 16,209 13,228 320,515 47.17% 359,031 52.83" 679,546
AZD009004961,AZTOO0624445 HONEYWELL, INC. 21,892 212,418 1,000 54,507 16,224 306,041 12.23" 2,195,856 87.m 2,501,897
AZ8170024493 MARINE CORPS AIR STA 132,544 170,934 950 13 1,034 305,475 46.55" 350,813 53.45% 656,288
AZD003987997 HEXAL CORP 85,864 0 70,999 67,564 67,564 291,991 83.81" 56,404 16.19% 348,395
AZ057D024133,AZ4572190029 LUKE AFB 89,898 726 1,628 111,346 88,285 291,883 37.39% 488,805 62.61% 780,688
AZD981579634 QUALITY PRINTED CIRCUIT 252,398 0 0 0 0 252,398 70.m 103,120 29.01% 355,518
AZD982041907 HEXCEL ADVANCED PROD FA 68,589 0 43,001 73,844 52,245 237,679 99.50" 1,199 0.50% 238,878
AZD091235457 INTEL CORP PHX CAMPUS 191,220 0 0 10,120 (l 201,340 69.81" 87,065 30.19% 288,405
AZD982519746 3M TUCSON DATA STORAGE 73,854 0 0 45,753 17,154 136,761 22.51" 470,838 77.49% 607,599
AZD042018689 ROGERS CORP-CIG 37,462 22,296 6,177 34,500 31,532 131,967 19.46" 546,171 80.54" 678,138
AZD980818330 NELCO TECHNOLOGY 35,718 0 0 35,718 0 71,436 3.73" 1,844,145 96.27% 1,915,581
AZ7570028582 WI LLIAMS AFB 52,037 1,245 6,489 298 2,923 62,992 19.81" 255,054 80.19% 318,046
AZTOO0624429 APS/PALO VERDE NUCLEAR 12,224 18,470 18,010 6,904 6,374 61,982 27.34" 164,708 n.66% 226,690
AZD980896310, AZD063274609 CONTI NENTALC IRCU ITS 49,735 0 0 42 372 50,149 1.63" 3,021,558 98.37% 3,071,707
AZD089304216 VAN WATERS &ROGERS 6,032 0 23,086 6,287 5,730 41,135 13.m 268,444 86.71" 309,579
AZ0074452426 SRP NAVAJO GEN STA 2,098 5,367 5,037 18,177 2,922 33,601 3.91" 824,839 96.09% 858,440
AZD981425010 TALLEY DEFENSE SYS 1,242 23,695 504 477 0 25,918 12.73" 177,748 87.27% 203,666
AZD097113856 LAMDBA ELECTRONICS DIV 10,250 13,500 0 0 0 23,750 6.51" 340,800 93.49% 364,550
AZT050010636 GILBERT ENGINEERING 0 14,476 0 0 0 14,476 5.49% 248,990 94.51% 263,466
AZTOO0623819 DIGITAL EQUIP 0 0 6,086 156 156 6,398 1.87% 336,162 98.13% 342,560
AZDOO8394397 AZ PORTLAND CEMENT CO 2,580 0 1,500 0 0 4,080 0.41" 988,200 99.59% 992,280
AZD982503385 DYNACO WEST CORP 800 433 579 800 0 2,612 0.85" 303,242 99.15% 305,854
AZD982471 062 TRW SAFETY SYSTEMS 9 0 0 8 0 17 0.01" 323,606 99.m 323,623
AZTOO0617548 TEXACO INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00" 718,948 100.00" 718,948
AZD982435484 NATIONAL AIRCRAFT, INC. 0 0 0 0 0 a 0.00" 1,098,360 100.00" 1,098,360
AZD085453603,AZTOO0611426 CAPITAL CASTINGS INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00" 2,122,200 100.00" 2,122,200
AZD981371628 CIRCUIT TECHNOLOGY INC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00" 383,780 100.00" 383,780
AZD008398505 CHEM RESEARCH CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00" 28Q,840 100.00" 280,840
AZD980735179 NORPLEX OAK INC/ALLIED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00" 402,627 100.00% 402,627
AZD980735500 WORLD RESOURCES CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00" 21,625,200 100.00" 21,625,200
AZDOO0625715 GOULD INC FOIL DIV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00" 1,423,869 100.00% 1,423,869
••••••••: ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••���•••••••••••••••=:=•=.===.=:-:::••::::=:=:=:====
TOTAL FOR 44 LQGS: 4,577,671 2,765,244 1,762,173 2,172,352 1,105,614 12,383,054 19.49% 50,693,870 80.51% 62,949,924
••••••••=:::••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••_::__:::::.:•••=•••••••••••••••••••::=••••••==•••••••••••••••••••••:==:==_:===::==••••-====::::======
\-
pounds (2,880 tons) of the 12,555,736 pounds (6,278 tons) were
recycled. Therefore, in 1990 the amount of hazardous waste
ultimately incinerated by LQGs was approximately 6,794,470 pounds
(3,397 tons) or 6% of Arizona's total hazardous waste stream (see
Chapter III and Appendices B, J and F). ADEQ does not have
comparable data for SQGs.
It is difficult to know whether all of the 6,794,470 pounds
of incinerated hazardous waste was required to be incinerated or
whether some of it could have been recycled. This difficulty
stems from two facts. First, the LDRs distinguish between solid
and liquids based upon the concentration of waste in the material
being disposed. A hazardous waste in solid form (known as "non­wastewater"
in EPA jargon) must be incinerated if it is not
recycled. But if hazardous wastes are in liquid form
("wastewater") one of the other EPA specified technologies can be
applied. For example, isobutanol (FOOl) is "wastewater" or
"liquid" if the waste has isobutanol levels of less than 5.0 mg/L
and is "non-wastewater" or "solid" at levels of 5.0 mg/L or more.
If it is a solid it must be incinerated or recycled. If it is a
liquid, the waste can be recycled, incinerated or sUbjected to
steam stripping, biological treatment or activated carbon.
Second, the FARs and manifests do not provide sufficient detail
to determine concentrations and therefore, ADEQ is unable to
determine whether all the wastes incinerated in 1990 were
mandatory incinerable wastes.
45
Because the Committee does not have access to sUfficiently
detailed information concerning the makeup of Arizona's
incinerable waste stream, it is impossible to predict the amount
of waste likely to be incinerated in the future. What we do know
is that using 1987 data, the October 1990 Report estimated
Arizona's mandatory incinerable hazardous waste stream to be 6%
of the total hazardous waste generated. Using available 1990
data, it appears that the 6% figure has not changed.
While it is difficult to project Arizona's future
incinerable waste stream, we know that it is small when compared
to the available incineration capacity in the Western states. As
of February 1992, there was 103,117 tons per year surplus
capacity to incinerate hazardous waste liquids and 129,710 tons
per year surplus capacity to incinerate hazardous waste solids
(see Appendix DO). Given this surplus capacity in the Western
states, there is no need for additional incineration capacity in
Arizona.
Summary
Using this 6% number, however, is misleading because the
total waste stream includes the potential for "double counting,"
and "one-time waste" (see Chapter III). While we cannot account
for all the double counting problem, we can, by sUbtracting the
one-time waste and the World Resources waste (for which treatment
and disposal in Arizona is not needed), reduce a major portion of
Arizona's recurrent hazardous waste stream as reported in Chapter
46
III. The calculation is appropriate because the one-time waste
mayor may not in any given year, require incineration capacity.
Therefore, using the recurrent waste stream without the one-time
waste, or World Resources, the total of Arizona's waste is
38,127,761 pounds (19,063 tons), making Arizona's 6,794,470
pounds (3,397 tons) of incinerated waste, approximately 8% of the
total recurrent waste stream (see Appendix J). This percentage
suggests that pollution prevention initiatives directed at
incinerable wastes are an appropriate and needed effort.
47
Chapter v. CUrrent Treatment and Disposal Practices
ADEQ records show that 37 facilities in Arizona have
reported accepting hazardous waste (see Map 3 and Appendix K).
Only 24 of these facilities are currently operating. The others
have closed, are being closed, or have a permit but have not yet
been constructed. Of the 24 facilities, only 13 are approved to
receive hazardous waste from off-site. The remaining 11 are
approved to perform on-site treatment/storage only. This data
does not include the exempt recyclers (World Resources, Cyprus
Miami and Romic) that do not require RCRA approval.
Twenty of the approved RCRA facilities are private (i.e.,
available to the owner/operator of the site only). One
commercial metals and solvent recovery facility, Recycling
Resources, has the capacity to manage 20,038,000 pounds (10,019
tons) of waste per year. Three Arizona commercial facilities are
permitted under RCRA to store hazardous waste: Rinchem, Safety
Kleen and Chemical Waste Management. However, not one of the
Arizona facilities is an authorized permanent disposal site for
federally listed hazardous wastes which limits the state's
ability to manage its own waste.
As a result, hazardous waste generated in Arizona today is
managed by a variety of different methods either occurring at the
site of generation or off-site at facilities in Arizona or other
states. Zn 1990, 32% of the .tate'. total hazardous waste stream
48
was treated at the site of generation by 13 companies. Ten
percent was shipped to Arizona's commercial treatment/storage
facilities, several of which were "captive" facilities that treat
waste generated by a facility on or off-site with' the same owner
(meaning the waste is managed by one company from the point of
generation to treatment). The remaining 58% of Arizona-generated
hazardous waste was shipped out-of-state (see Appendix I).
There are three recycling facilities in Arizona that are
exempt from some of the RCRA regulations such as permit and
reporting requirements. The two major recyclers, World Resources
and Cyprus Miami, primarily receive imported waste as opposed to
Arizona-generated waste (see Chapter III). The third recycling
facility, Romic, is under EPA jurisdiction because it is located
on Indian lands. Romic recycled 2,518,054 pounds (1,259 tons) of
Arizona-generated waste in 1990.
Arizona's 13 approved facilities receiving hazardous waste
are listed in Table 5 below by name, volume of waste received
from in-state generators and regulatory status.
50
Table 5
Amount of Hazardous waste Received by Arizona's
13 Approved Facilities from Arizona Generators
=================================================================
USEPAID# Company Name Pounds status
=================================================================
l.AZD980735500
2.AZD009015389
3.AZD980892731
4.AZD060624251
5.AZT050010180
6.AZD089308803
AZD980892897
7.AZD049318009
World Resources
Romic Chemical
Rinchem
Cyprus Miami
Chemical Waste Mgmt
Safety Kleen Phoenix
safety Kleen Tucson
Recycling Resources
4,079,841
2,518,054
1,562,774
641,526
227,693
154,366
55,178
96,451
commer-recycler
commer-recycler
commer-storage
commer-recycler
commer-storage
commer-storage
commer-storage
commer-treat
=======================================================
8.AZ4572190029
9.AZ4570024139
10.AZD020132502
11.AZ4570024055
12.AZD008397069
13.AZD980638290
AZ
Summary
Luke AFB DRMO Annex
Luke AFB Gila Bend
Talley Defense System
Davis Monthan AFB
ITT Cannon
Unidynamics
N/A
365,666
1,732
170,274
35,624
34,000
2,080
68,979
storage
priv-treatment
priv-treatment
priv-treatment
priv-treatment
priv-treatment
n/a
When the above data is viewed in terms of Arizona's
recurrent waste stream of 38,127,761 pounds (or 19,063 tons), it
becomes clear that Arizona's commercial recyclers already manage
approximately 20% of that waste stream. This is significant
because it means that there is an unsatisfied treatment/disposal
need for only aproximately 30,500,000 pounds or 15,250 tons of
hazardous waste. This number may actually include waste that has
been double counted, thereby making the actual recurrent waste
stream somewhat smaller (see footnote 2 on page 27). The
S1
recurrent waste stream is primarily made up of solvents (see
Appendix CC), and a portion of that may be able to undergo
recycling or treatment before undergoing other forms of treatment
and disposal.
52
Chapter VI. Evaluation of the Scientific Panel Report
HB 2121 (Chapter 315, Laws 1991) directed the Committee to
select three scientists from a list provided by the Governor to
study hazardous waste treatment and disposal technologies,
including the effects of incineration and other technologies on
human health and the environment. The Scientific Panel was to
report the results of its study by March 1, 1992 for evaluation
by the Committee. The objective of the Scientific Panel was to
provide Arizona with an independent, objective overview of new
(including experimental) and existing technologies in a format
that the Committee could use to develop recommendations that
address Arizona's hazardous waste needs and concerns.
The Committee anticipated that the Scientific Panel Report
would provide technological information to fill the existing
information gaps and identify the human and environmental health
and economic impacts of various treatment and disposal
technologies. The Scientific Panel was selected by the
committee in December 1991. In January 1992 the Committee
provided recommendations of what the Panel's report should
address (see Attachment 2). By February 1992 the Panel developed
a list of the technologies to be addressed in their report and
submitted this to the Committee for review (see Attachment 3).
The Panel members were:
Mr. Jan Radimsky, Chief
Office of Statewide Planning
California Department of Toxic Substances Control
Sacramento, California
53
Mr. Donald A. Oberacker
Thermal Destruction Branch
Waste Minimization, Destruction & Disposal Research Division
u.s. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio
Dr. steven W. Carothers
SWCA Environmental Consultants
Flagstaff, Arizona
Unfortunately, the Scientific Panel never produced a report
as specified in HB 2121 (Chapter 315, Laws 1991) due to a lack of
resources and other conflicts. In August 1992, Mr. Jan Radimsky
submitted a written response (see Attachment 4) to the committee
with attached materials as follows:
1) A list of wastes with corresponding non-liquid and
liquid best demonstrated available technologies for
treatment (BDAT);
2) A copy of the previously submitted Scientific Panel
Report Outline;
3) The Table of Contents of the Standard Handbook of
Hazardous Wastes Treatment and Disposal (Harry M.
Freeman, Editor, McGraw-Hill, 1989);
4) Copies of eight reports/proceedings issued by the
California Department of Toxic Substances.
The materials provided by the Scientific Panel did not
include any analysis of hazardous waste treatment and disposal
technologies. Consequently, the Committee was unable to fulfill
its charge of evaluating the Scientific Panel Report to identify
specific environmentally sound technologies that would most
likely be utilized by hazardous waste generators in Arizona.
Such analyses are absolutely essential to developing any
54
recommendations of appropriate technologies for Arizona's
hazardous waste.
While we do not have the Scientific Panel Report, it should
be helpful to know what types of technologies are currently being
applied to Arizona-generated waste at out-of-state TSD's. We
know the technologies below are applied to Arizona-generated
waste, but the limited information in the FARs makes it
impossible to determine the precise volume of waste treated by
each technology. It was the Committee's hope that the Scientific
Panel would have provided the information to perform this
analysis.
Disposal Technologies Applied to Arizona-Generated Hazardous
Waste
1) deactivation - a process to remove the hazardous
Characteristics of a waste;
2) incineration ~ the burning of combustible solvents,
primarily in cement kilns(see Chapter IV);
3) recovery of organics in waste utilizing specified
techniques;
4) thermal recovery of lead in secondary lead smelters;
5) thermal recovery of metals or inorganics;
6) retorting/roasting waste in a thermal processing unit;
7) fuel sUbstitution.
For wastes that are not sUbject to LDR regulations, the
treatment technology utilized is based on EPA-approved hazardous
waste handling practices which may include the techniques
ss
described above as well as processes to recover metals, solvents
or disposal (see Appendix L). These technologies, such as
metals recovery processes, are more representative of the
technologies that are commercially available in Arizona.
summary
Due to the various technological options for managing an
individual hazardous waste and the limited information provided
in the FARs, it is difficult to project the specific technologies
or practices which will be utilized by Arizona generators on the
waste in any given year. It depends, in part, on the regulatory
status as well as cost-effectiveness of a treatment technology.
In addition, some Arizona generators may be committed to manage
their hazardous waste under existing contracts with specific TSD
facilities outside of Arizona. Therefore, generators need to be
surveyed to see if they would use an Arizona site.
56
Chapter VII. Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization in Arizona
Pollution Prevention
HB 2121 (Chapter 315, Laws 1991) established an incentive­based
pollution prevention program for Arizona businesses to
reduce the amount of hazardous wastes generated and toxic
substances used' (see Appendix M). Under current state law
(A.R.S. S49-961), pollution prevention means operational
procedures and processes and improvements in housekeeping or
management techniques that reduce potential or actual releases of
pollutants (i.e., hazardous wastes, toxic substances, water
contaminants, air emissions) to the environment. The program
requires LQGs and others that use certain amounts of toxic
substances to submit a pollution prevention plan to ADEQ (phased
in over four years beginning with the largest generators in
December 1992). Facilities that file a plan (even those that do
not meet the threshold requirements) receive a 50% credit on
their hazardous waste generation fees collected by ADEQ for the
year the plan is submitted. Because the first submittal date for
pollution prevention plans is not until December 1992, limited
information was available to the Committee to fulfill its
directive to determine the potential reduction in the amount of
hazardous waste that could result from pollution prevention plan
implementation and waste reduction techniques.
As pollution prevention plans are submitted and evaluated
over the next several months, ADEQ will have the information
57
necessary to assess pollution prevention activities utilized by
Arizona businesses and the impacts of those activities on our
hazardous waste stream. In January 1994, state law (A.R.S. §49-
963) will ensure that ADEQ further promotes the reduction or
elimination of hazardous wastes by establishing a numeric waste
minimization goal for Arizona.
waste Minimization
Waste minimization includes any source reduction or
recycling activity undertaken by a generator that reduces the
volume and/or toxicity of hazardous wastes. Pollution prevention
and waste minimization may utilize similar methods and procedures
to achieve their distinct goals of eliminating or reducing
pollutants and hazardous waste, respectively. Demonstrated
techniques include the following:
1) changes/substitutes in raw materials used in the
manufacturing process, reduction or elimination of
toxic sUbstances;
2) changes in applied technologies or processes;
3) product sUbstitutions;
4) good operating practices such as spill prevention,
inventory control to ensure substances are used before
they expire and are considered wastes;
5) in-process or other on-site recycling processes that
reuse or reclaim valuable materials.
Based on existing data, 54 out of 251 Arizona LQG generators
provided waste minimization data from 1990-91 on their FARs
submitted to ADEQ in 1992 (see Table 6 and Appendix N). As
58
reported, these 54 generators reduced the amount of hazardous
waste they produced by 11.3%. A total of 22 types of wastes were
reduced including the 12 major waste types. generated in Arizona
(see Table 7).
59
Table 7
Hazardous Waste Minimized by 54 Selected
Generators in 1991, by Waste Type
========================================
Waste Type Pounds Percent
========================================
D002
FOOl
D008
D006
F006
F003
LABP
D001
D003
F005
F002
D007
P066
D005
D035
D018
D009
D028
DOll
D029
F007
D039
460,926
432,422
163,282
128,867
115,700
100,700
93,180
76,548
64,024
53,085
51,422
7,544
6,760
5,708
4,575
1,943
1,288
700
700
392
300
233
26.04
24.43
9.22
7.28
6.54
5.69
5.26
4.32
3.62
3.00
2.90
0.43
0.38
0.32
0.26
0.11
0.07
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.01
=======================================
Total 1,770,300 100.00
=======================================
The 54 generators reduced their wastes primarily by
instituting process modifications such as "closed-loop" recycling
and/or sUbstituting solvents with aqueous cleaners in the
manufacturing process. A significant amount of reduction was
achieved by simply implementing good operating practices such as
increasing the emphasis on maintenance or more efficient
production scheduling. Some generators recycled on-site as an
62
extension of the production process which also resulted in long-term.
cost benefits to the generator (see Table 8).
Table 8
Quantity of Hazardous Waste Reduced by
54 Generators in 1991 by Waste Minimization Technique
=================================================================
Technique
Process Modifications
Good Operating Practices
Recycling Activity
Raw Material Modifications
Inventory Control
Spill and Leak Prevention
Product Modifications
Pounds
781,877
423,588
280,640
126,060
120,765
31,110
6,260
Percent
44.17
33.93
15.85
7.12
6.82
1.76
0.35
"=================================================================
Under the federal CAP requirements, states may claim the
reduction of 10% of hazardous wastes generated within their
borders without documentation. The 11.3% reduction reported to
ADEQ satisfies the minimum federal standard almost entirely
through the implementation of good housekeeping practices. Using
these 54 companies as a sample of Arizona's hazardous waste
generators, we can conclude that the potential for reduction of
hazardous wastes generated through pollution prevention
implementation is great.
Summary
The most effective way to handle hazardous waste is to not
create it in the first place. Waste minimization/pollution
prevention practices will continue to develop in Arizona over the
next several years with the implementation of ADEQ's pollution
63
prevention program and increasing awareness of waste reduction
technologies. However, it must be noted that the reduction of
hazardous wastes generated or toxic substances used might be
offset at any time by economic growth resulting in increased
levels of production by Arizona businesses or new business moving
to Arizona. Regardless, it is essential that all hazardous waste
generators in Arizona commit to promoting and implementing
pollution prevention practices if we are to significantly reduce
our hazardous waste stream over time. One of the criteria for
soliciting new business in Arizona must to be the commitment of
those companies to protecting the environment and doing pollution
prevention.
64
Chapter VIII. utilization of the Estrella Point Site in Mobile
Description
The Estrella Point (also known as ENSCO) facility is located
on a 640-acre site approximately 45 miles southwest of Phoenix
and six miles west/southwest of Mobile, Arizona. The main
facility covers approximately 65 acres and is surrounded by a
six-foot chain link fence. Since September 24, 1991, the
Department of Administration (DOA) has managed and provided 24-
hour security and maintenance for the site. DOA's cost to manage
the site is approximately $100,000 annually (see Appendix 0).
The Estrella Point site encompasses an assortment of
physical structures originally designed for the storage and
disposal of hazardous waste. The site houses a number of
administrative and maintenance buildings which are completed or
near completion. other structures include a large warehouse
designed, upon completion, to store newly arrived hazardous waste
from an adjacent truck-rail siding. If completed as designed,
the facility could handle numerous hazardous waste transport
trucks per day. Based on a 1987 report prepared for the
Department of Health Services (DHS), an average of 19 daily
shipments to the facility was expected. 3
The site has several waste processing areas including a
partially completed solidification tank and a 750,000 gallon raw
311Risk Assessment of Transporting Hazardous Waste to the
Arizona Waste Management Facility, II p. 7 of the final draft
prepared by Mountain West on April 17, 1987.
65
water storage tank. A 350 sq. ft. concrete slab (3.5 ft. thick)
has been poured, which was intended to support three portable
hazardous waste incinerators and kiln driers. In addition, the
site has a lined brine pond to accommodate post processing run­off.
The site also has a 7-8 acre landfill area designed for
four cells. Excavation has been initiated on two of the cells.
A completed stormwater retention pond is designed to provide
protection from floods and natural runoff to the main site.
History
The primary purpose of the Estrella Point facility was to
serve the hazardous waste needs of Arizona. As a functional
disposal site, the Estrella Point facility was designed to
alleviate both the high cost of shipping hazardous' waste out-of­state
for disposal and illegal dumping of hazardous waste in the
state's riverbeds and deserts. currently, disposal of Arizona's
hazardous wastes is handled by 23 other states - primarily
California (see Chapter III).
The Estrella Point facility was designed to handle a variety
of industrial and commercial hazardous wastes including organic
waste, solvents, metallic sludges, liquids, and solids.
Hazardous material spills from state and federal superfund clean­up
sites would also have been disposed of at this site. However,
the facility is prohibited from accepting any radioactive
materials, explosives, or household wastes (A.R.S. S49-903 (B)).
66
In 1980, the Arizona Legislature directed the Arizona
Department of Health Services (DHS) to select a site for a state
hazardous waste disposal facility. Upon the recommendation of
ADHS in 1981, legislation was adopted selecting the Mobile site.
The land for the site was purchased by the state from the federal
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for $256,000 on June 29, 1984,
with no formal restrictions on its use, although the
understanding at the time was that it was to be developed as a
hazardous waste disposal site. An additional right-of-way
easement for access from State Route 238 to the site was obtained
from BLM.
This legislation also directed DHS to adopt rules governing
the -management, construction and operation" of any state
disposal site (see former A.R.S. S 36-2806, now A.R.S. S 49-905).
These regulations were to include provisions relating to the
transportation of hazardous waste within Arizona to the site and
the -types and amounts of hazardous wastes to be accepted for
disposal" by the facility. To date, these regulations have not
been adopted because there is no operational state hazardous
waste facility.
In January 1981, DHS prepared a report to the Legislature on
the status of the hazardous waste facility (a copy is on file and
available for pUblic review at ADEQ - see Appendix AA). The
report informed the Legislature that other states could use the
Arizona disposal site, although such use would be discouraged.
~
The report noted that waste importation was a highly sensitive
67
issue governed by legal, administrative, economic and
environmental considerations.
In October 1982, DHS issued an Request For Proposals (RFP)
for the design, construction, financing, operation, and
maintenance of a hazardous waste management facility to be
located in Mobile. While 70 firms received the RFP, only two
submitted bids for the project. The first bid proposed a Klow
technology" approach using only a landfill to dispose of
hazardous waste. The second bid, submitted by ENSCO, proposed a
Khigh technology" approach which included not only advanced
landfill disposal, but also, advanced technology incineration to
be used for PCB's.
In July 1983, the state accepted ENSCO's bid. It called for
one incinerator, regional PCB waste disposal, and mobile
equipment which would help avoid high capital costs. ENSCO
estimated the cost of the facility to be $16 million. In January
1986, the contract between the state and ENSCO was executed. 4
4 Some prov1s1ons of this contract included the site being
designated as a Kfull service" facility providing for the storage,
treatment, and disposal of hazardous waste, including incineration.
A user fee schedule was to be established prior to the operation of
the facility by which ENSCO would be provided with a reasonable
annual gross profit margin. Fees were to be remitted to the state
which was to retain $150,000 annually plus 2% of the gross
revenues, SUbject to an undetermined annual cap (the balance of the
fees was to be paid to ENSCO). Finally, it was stipulated that
ENSCO would finance, construct, operate, and maintain the facility
in accordance with applicable state and federal laws, regulations
and permits, and its contract with the state. six months after the
contract was signed, ENSCO estimated the cost of the facility to be
$26 million. In 1987, the-contract was extended five years until
2001. In September 1989, ENSCO estimated its capital investment in
the site to be $47 million. The state acquired ENSCO's interests
in the site for $44 million in September 1991.
68
status of Peraits Issued at Estrella Point
In February 1988, a pUblic hearing was held in Mobile on the
ADEQ Proposed Groundwater Protection Permit and Solid Waste
Approval. At that time, the Air Quality Installation Permit was
issued, but ADEQ lacked statutory authority to hold hearings on
proposed air quality installation permits. Revisions to the air
quality statute were enacted in 1989 and became effective on
September 15, 1989, requiring that all proposed air permits be
SUbject to pUblic comment and the opportunity for pUblic
hearings.
with the issuance of the following permits, construction was
allowed to begin on portions of the facility:
(1) Permit No. 1203, an Air Quality Installation
Permit, issued by ADEQ on February 4, 1988;
(2) A national approval to operate the MWP 2000
incinerator for treatment of PCB's, issued by
EPA under the Toxic Substance Control Act on
March 16, 1988;
(3) Permit No. G-008-07, a Groundwater Protection
Permit issued by ADEQ on April 19, 1988; and
(4) A solid waste approval, reference number SW­8894,
issued by ADEQ on April 25, 1988.
On May 7, 1990, a joint ADEQ/EPA pUblic hearing on the
following proposed permits was held in Mobile:
69
(1) Permit No. 1224, a revised Air Quality
Installation Permit, proposed by ADEQ under
the Arizona Air Quality Act;
(2) A hazardous waste permit, proposed by ADEQ
under the Arizona Hazardous Waste Management
Act;
(3) A hazardous waste permit, proposed by EPA
under the federal Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act; and,
(4) A toxic waste facility permit, proposed by
EPA under the Toxic Substance Control Act.
Additional pUblic hearings on June 20, 1990, and June 21,
1990, were held in Phoenix and Tucson, respectively. Together,
these three public proceedings drew over 3,000 people from which
an excess of 300 oral comments were received from individuals and
organization representatives.
If the site is completed as originally designed, a
SUbsequent operator of the site would have the opportunity to
utilize any documents on file at ADEQ related to the permits to
the extent they are relevant and appropriate. However, all
permits and perait applications issued by ADEQ to ERSCO for the
facility have been terminated. Any new operator would be
required to initiate new permit applications (see Appendix P).
In addition, should completion of the site deviate from the
specifications originally presented by ENSCO, the documents would
have to be modified accordingly. All records related to ENSCO's
70
permits and the permit application process are boxed in storage
at ADEQ and are available for pUblic review.
Legal Xssues Xnvolving the Disposal of Hazardous waste
It is clear that one of the most contentious issues facing
environmental management today is the treatment and disposal of
hazardous waste. In Arizona, the principal areas of concern have
been the importation and incineration of hazardous waste and
attempts to focus on toxic use reduction and pollution
prevention.
Many state and local governments have sought ways to prevent
or restrict the flow of hazardous waste into their jurisdictions.
These attempts have included enacting outright bans on out-of­state
waste, levying higher fees on imported waste, and adopting
waste management plans that direct certain types of waste to
specified facilities. The legality of such restrictions is
governed by the Commerce Clause of the u.s. Constitution which
limits the rights of states to regulate interstate commerce.
Under the Commerce Clause, state and local governments are
prohibited from interfering with interstate commerce unless they
are deemed to be "market participants." Based on existing case
law, outright bans on the importation of hazardous waste based
solely on the origin of the waste would be illegal. s
S
(1978) .
City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617, 621-22
71
A few state and local government actions have survived
jUdicial scrutiny under the Commerce Clause. If a state
qualifies as a "market participant" it may prohibit or limit the
processing of imported waste or may charge higher fees for
processing through contract, statute or rule. The tests applied
by the courts focus on whether the state's activities constituted
direct participation in the marketplace. For example, in swin
Resource Systems, Inc. v. Lycoming county, Pennsylvania, 883 F.2d
245 (3rd cir., 1989) the Third Circuit held that because the
county owned and operated the landfill in dispute, the county was
free to impose price and volume conditions on waste generated
outside of the county. The court reasoned, "residents who reside
within the jurisdiction of a county or municipality are unlikely
to pay for local government services if they must bear the cost
but the entire nation may benefit." Such restrictions, however,
could not apply to privately-owned landfills and not beyond the
immediate market in which the county transacts its business.
Id. at 250-51.
In 1991, Governor Symington led an effort to acquire ENSCO's
interests in the Estrella Point facility. Sole ownership of the
Estrella Point facility gives the state the ability to control
the source, type and amount of hazardous waste handled at this
facility. This authority made it possible for the Legislature to
amend A.R.S. S 49-903 in 1991 to prohibit disposal of any
hazardous waste at the site that is generated outside the state
until the Legislature approves an interstate disposal agreement
72
pursuant to CERCLA or finds that such a prohibition is no longer
in the best interests of the state (A.R.S. S 49-903(0». An
outright ban on incineration of hazardous waste at state-owned
facilities was enacted by the Legislature at the same time
(A.R.S. S 49-903(C».
During the 1992 Legislative Session, the Legislature enacted
SB 1053. This legislation requires all state agencies to perform
a constitutional takings implications assessment of proposed
rules and related agency actions pursuant to guidelines prepared
and interpreted by the Arizona Attorney General's Office (Chapter
107, Laws 1992). Because this legislation focuses on the scope
and conditions of regulatory permits issued by state agencies,
this Committee asked the Attorney General's Office to provide
advice on the impact of SB 1053 on the state's ability to
restrict future uses of the Estrella Point facility (see
Attachment 5).
The Attorney General's Office provided the Committee with an
analysis which breaks down into two areas. First, to the extent
the state attempts to place regulatory restrictions on commercial
activities performed by private parties at the Estrella Point
facility, the provisions of SB 1053 will apply. However, if the
state retains ownership and operates this facility, SB 1053 will
not apply, nor will SB 1053 apply if the state leases the site to
a private party after having obtained the appropriate regulatory
permits in the state's name. This is because SB 1053 only
applies to governmental actions which limit the use of private
73
property. As long as Estrella Point is owned by the public or is
pUblic property leased to a private party, the state may restrict
the use of that property.
The state's ability to impose permit conditions on regulated
activities on private property has always been restricted by the
scope of the agency's statutory authority. SB 1053, however,
imposes an additional layer of regulatory control requiring,
among other things, that permit conditions ·shall directly relate
to the purpose for which the permit is issued, shall
sUbstantially advance that purpose and shall be expressly
authorized by law" (A.R.S. S 37-222(C) (1». Moreover, when state
action is intended to protect the pUblic health and safety, such
action may be ·taken only in response to real and substantial
threats to public health and safety" and ·no greater than
necessary to achieve the health and safety purpose" (A.R.S. S 37­221(
B) (4) (a) and (c». The Arizona Attorney General's Office
believes this language is ambiguous as to what conditions would
meet this criteria (see Attachment 6). until a permit
application is initiated (after the Attorney General's guidelines
are in place), it is difficult to determine the extent to which
the provisions of SB 1053 will restrict the state's ability to
impose permit conditions on commercial activities by private
parties at the Estrella Point facility. However, there is no
question that SB 1053 will restriction the state's control over
the site.
74
It is important to understand that for the purposes of SB
1053 there is a distinction between regulatory actions taken by
the state which restrict the actions of private parties and
contractual provisions negotiated between the state and a private
party. Nothing in SB 1053 restricts the state's ability to
impose restrictions on activities at the Estrella Point facility
through a contract executed between the state and a private
party. As long as the private party agrees to be bound by the
terms and conditions of a contract governing the operations at
the Estrella Point facility, the state is free to negotiate
operating restrictions. Nevertheless, to minimize the potential
for claims against the state alleging unwarranted takings of
private property, the Attorney General's Office has advised this
Committee that a contractual provision should be obtained from
the private party in which the party waives all rights to
compensation for loss of any property rights. This will not free
the state from its requirement to perform a takings assessment,
but it will limit the private party's ability to object to
alleged unwarranted governmental takings to those restrictions
imposed in a regulatory permit.
The state may also impose restrictions on future
owners/operators of the Estrella Point facility by including
restrictive covenants in the deed. Such restrictions, if
properly drafted, can run with the land indefinitely. To be
valid, however, the state must retain an ownership interest in
the facility real property or land adjacent to the facility.
75
sa 1053 requires the Attorney General to adopt guidelines to
assist state agencies in the identification of governmental
actions that have constitutional takings i~plications by January
1994. until these guidelines are prepared, it is difficult to
determine the exact nature of the restrictions to be placed upon
state agency regulatory actions. Moreover, an initiative
proposal which would repeal the provisions of sa 1053 is awaiting
a determination by the Secretary of State that sufficient
signatures have been obtained to place the initiative on the 1994
ballot. If the Secretary of State determines that sufficient
signatures have been obtained, all action to enforce the measure
will be in abeyance until the referendum is put to a vote of the
people in the 1994 general election. Until this issue is finally
addressed by the Attorney General's Office or the pUblic through
the voting process, this Committee is unable to thoroughly
address the potential ramifications of sa 1053.
'6
Chapter IX. committee Recommendations to the Governor and the
Legislature
The committee wishes to advise the Legislature that after a
year of researching and taking testimony from numerous experts in
the field (including the Scientific Panel, the regulated
community, state and federal regulators and the environmental
community), we believe that additional information is necessary
before making any final recommendations on the use of the
Estrella Point site. While we believe that additional
information is critical to a sound decision on the state's future
hazardous waste treatment and disposal needs, the following
recommendations are appropriate at this time:
1. until additional information as itemized below is obtained,
the committee recommends that the Legislature retain the
site, but not use it for hazardous waste management. The
committee recommends that, if the Estrella Point site is
ever used for hazardous waste handling, the state retain
ownership of the site in order to maximize its ability to:
(a) control the type of technology used at the site; (b)
determine the amount of hazardous waste accepted at the
site; and (c) restrict or ban the source of hazardous waste
accepted at the site.
2. The committee recommends that the Legislature fund a
balanced scientific study as outlined in Attachment 7 of
77
this Report to consider all appropriate innovative and
existing technologies which: (a) treat and dispose of
Arizona's hazardous waste stream in a manner that maximizes
the protection of human and environmental health; (b) is
economically viable; and (c) could reduce generation of
hazardous waste and the subsequent need for hazardous waste
management facilities.
3. The committee recommends that the Legislature maintain the
statutory ban on incineration at state-owned hazardous waste
facilities (A.R.S 49-903(C».
4. The committee recommends that the Legislature maintain the
statutory ban on importation at the Estrella Point site
(A.R.S. 49-903(D».
5. The committee recommends that the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality's (ADEQ) current statutory role of
regulation, management and operation of the state site,
pursuant to A.R.S. S49-903, be separated, with ADEQ
retaining its regulatory authority and the management and
operation of the site assigned to an appropriate state
agency, depending on the use of the site.
6. The committee recommends that the Legislature fund ADEQ to
conduct a survey of those generators that cumulatively
78
produce 85% of the hazardous waste in Arizona (identified in
this report) to identify opportunities to maximize pollution
prevention and to determine the likelihood of these
generators using a disposal facility in Arizona, both
presently and after implementing aggressive pollution
prevention/toxic use reduction programs.
7. The Committee recommends that the Legislature adopt into
statute priorities for handling waste in the following
manner: (a) source reduction; (b) recycling/reuse; and (c)
treatment and disposal. Consistent with these priorities,
the Committee recommends that the Legislature embark upon
creating an aggressive pollution prevention program in
Arizona based upon results of the 1992 pollution prevention
plan data required to be submitted to ADEQ on or before
December 31, 1992.
8. The Committee recommends that the Legislature consider the
feasibility and benefit of expanding the reporting
requirements of Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity
Generators (CESQGs) to provide mare information regarding
the number of generators, the amounts and types of hazardous
waste generated in Arizona. The Committee recommends that,
in obtaining this information to determine the impact on
human and environmental health by these generators, the
79
Legislature be sensitive to the cost of additional reporting
requirements on the reporting entities.
9. The Committee recommends that the Legislature consider the
feasibility and benefit of expanding the reporting
requirements on municipalities to provide more information
regarding the amounts and types of hazardous waste generated
by households and businesses. The committee recommends that
the Legislature be sensitive to the cost of additional
reporting requirements on the reporting entities as well as
the cost of continuing to place hazardous waste generated by
households and businesses in solid waste landfills.
10. The Committee recommends that the Legislature remove the ban
on disposal of household hazardous waste at any state-owned
hazardous waste facilities (A.R.S. 49-903(B».
11. The Committee recommends that the Legislature, when
attempting to project hazardous waste generation in Arizona,
re-examine Arizona's definition of hazardous waste to
consider whether it wants to modify that definition to take
into consideration more expansive definitions in other
states.
12. The Committee recommends that the Governor assure that
Arizona receives adequate credit for its receipt of
80
federally-defined hazardous waste at facilities in Arizona
from the other states in the Western states Regional
Agreement. Arizona should also receive' credit from the
members of the Agreement for the importation'of all waste
deemed hazardous in the state of origin.
13. The committee recommends that, until the state is successful
in receiving credit for the importation of hazardous waste
to private facilities in Arizona, the state should impose a
ban on the importation of hazardous waste at all state-owned
hazardous waste facilities other than Estrella Point.
14. The committee recommends that the Legislature make no
decisions concerning the Estrella Point site until it
receives current hazardous waste information from ADEQ's
accounting system and data management system.
15. The committee recommends that the Department of
Administration perform an audit of all materials and
equipment at the Estrella Point site for the purpose of
determining whether such items should be made available for
use to state agencies or sold if in danger of
deteriorization. The Committee recommends that the disposal
of these items should not jeopardize future utilization of
the site.
81
16. The Committee recommends that the Department of
Administration find an alternative use for the Estrella
Point site.
82
Attachment 1
Arizona
Was1e CodefTechnologies
NonllQulO BOt. i LlOUIO t3()t. 1
0(- "8(>11011100 I - c=== - Ipnn~ uoutOs ~10 ~ TOC FSU8S;RORGS; or CNON
N:::tC 5UbCal.pory [)eac:uvauon - J;.oo....l)'. IVe~CllV.ltOn :-+tG'uu.llZaloOn.
neutralaatlOfl. inc:inerallOfl If'lCltMIrallan
ke"ClIVfl C.yarncKl Suocatepo'r AlIl.ailne cNOflNltlOn. ~l a" AlKaline c:nloflf~\lon. we1 alf
oxidation. 01 •••cuolytc oxlOallon. 01 .leCHotyUC
oxidatIOn. 01lIOa1IOn,__---- __
I 'Ii"uIIC.:IO°
I C,..mlr-.'O'eopna"nn
;"r~."'"
banum SUl~lZ.uon Ctwtmcat preQPClauon
e..am.um SlIlbiIaa"oll 0' metal .ec:o....ry ChemICal pt-oPft.'lOn
()vomI.Im ChromIum ,.ouClion. stabia.llOn crwonwm fedUc:uon. pl'eQt)IlatlOtl
LNCl SlabQaaUon Chemrcal p'.QPftatIOO. sJuOge
cH>wat••rnc
....,c:uryl~' m;fo."Y Subcat~) . /!tCId "ac:neng. etaeme:al ox.cauon. Chenuc:at pceapllauon with SU• .c:M
~ .....rino I Cherrncal pr.aDll_ron welt! sull.c:M
~naum SlabillZatlon
Swel SlabtlaaUon 01 'eQ)V.!!y. . -1 Chem~~~1C)tl
~
tnanera"on _.,. -_.- -r,;;;;r.atron or carnon adsorpuon
benz.", - VWOfooerueM
Cniorotorm ------ o-Clnel
_. -
1.4. DchtorObenz.N I .
1,1 O«::htorMlhY'.N
'2."i~'-
~:."~ C"..~v ":=:-.5 -. - 1 I
F'.m~not ~---:- I "-
,.c.,5-TP &nc:Inera'tOfl cn.mical QxIcaUon or tnc:ineratlOtl
l~nv"n. I
•raet\iOfOeU'Wle'" I
Spen: SoIwInss Usee In Oegrtraswtg InCIneration ~.an: S~, OlOopecal
treatment, ActiYaled Ca\'t)Qfl.
~..,." ~.r~ :.:..: :.-. ~:;:s~~ ~e!2!":'''' I S'eam SttClO'l\;. &1Ob9c:a1
I ".II1m.nt. Aet",...c Cal'DOfl.
Spen: ScMvams Used in o.pf8aP'1g incineration IsaArr. S~. ~ecal ,
treatment. Acliva1.e Catt»on.
Spen: Solv.ms Used In o.pr••SInQ ,.nan.rauon
. Isa••mSll~. CwcMopecal
treatment. Aetiv81ed Catt»on.
Spen: Sotvents Usee in o.p,easeng incineratIOn Steam S1rQ)rI'- EMobpcaJ
treatment Aclivattld Carbon.
W~.,. sauop. lrom ANiIne ChiOrJnalGn .cyanIDeS): AUW~
~Operations chemaJ pr-*Idion. ~. CcyaniOes)=:IUOmium Ndu=ion.
Glnliof\. and aabiiz.aion prec:QCalion with WM anCl
C""') sul'1Oel. ~ cewasering
•..wsl
$peftl Oya" \Of'm~ AIuiIne~tcyanilMs): MalIne CNl:W1nallOn CcyarMOes);
~ chemical pKipi.aion. aaaJinG, cn.mical prec:i>itatior.. setting. . tllt8lion. and aabiVasion sUOp. oewat.ring (rn«aa)
'lMtatsl
Paunp ba1I'l .~ trom ~~Cc:yaNOeS}; Alulrne CNOnnlUtOrl tcyanides):
Eiec:uoplating Operalions . chernical prec:ipil.aion, seD~. chemical pr-='alion. settlin;. fllllahon. and stabilization sluOpe oewa~rin; (metalS)
'fMUUSl
$pen: S&npping lrom E..cuopWtng AJKakne~.cyanides); ~1'Mr etuorlnatlon ~e:y~nioas);
Operations chemical pr.eiQi!non. sear.,;. Chemical precipitation. -s.Ufin;,
filtl1ltion.ane S1abiizmion 'meWs) ~e Clewatarinc: (m~ats)
W~'fWIll.r 1Jecmem SiuOpes ttom ~Chtonnaton icyanlOeS}; Akaw cnlOfinallOn (cyanlOes);
AIutnn~ Coating a.t»zation Cc:htomiurn) d\romium r.oUCtion. enemical
pr~wilh lim. ant
sulfides. sIuO~ c.wa'erinQ
(metals) Incin.ralion . -- ._.. ..-
Fe"
Fa01
F005
Foes
FOOl
FOC3
~C~!
D037
0038
0035
DO.O
FOO'
FOD6
000.11
0005
0006
0007'
000.
DOOS
D003
FOO~
0010
"DO"
DO"
0011
&,)Il~'
0022
00:3
D027
OC2P
ocio
•• SIE-" CO
000'
0002
Paqe 1
Arizona
Waste CodelTechnofogies
2
TIetlnlllo n NOn IIIQuid BOAT LiquId BOAT
Mun,l"ctlaI6 InclO81altOn (olganICS), BI()/OQlCaJ Irealmer.; :':';~wed by"
stabilization (metals) chemical ptecipitation; or wel-ait
oxidalion followed by carbon
adsorption followed by chemical
pree:ipitation
Petroleum industry tank bonoms SoIvenl extraction or tnCIOelalton Incineration (cyanides): Chromium
(leaded) (organies), stabilizatIOn of ash reduction, chemeal ptecipaation,
vacuum filtration (metals)
&ozopyran
.__.-
FSUSS;or INCIN:---- ~IOX«CAOXO) tb cAAmi;Or
INCIN
AMyl alcohol FSUBS: or INCIN. (WETOX or CHOXO) tb CAABN; or
. - INON
"·Aminopyridne INCIN. (WETOX or CHOXO) fb CARBN; or
INClN
Arsenic: acid Vitrification Chemical precipitation
ArMnic: oxide VitrifICation Chemical
..
lilian
Arsenic oxide Vltrihcation ChemICal praapitmion
&ryUium Dust RMETL; or RTHRM.
Otehloromethyl ether INCIN. (WETOX or CHOXO) fb CARBN: or
INClN
Oinoseb Incineration BIOlogical treatment or wet-air
, oxidation tollowed by carbon
adsorption
Caroon dlSulllde INCIN. Biological treatment or wet-au
oxidation tollowed by carbon
adsorption
Accnaldehyde. chlaro- INCIN. - (Wt:lOX or CHOXO) fb CARBN; or
/NON
&ozenamine. 4-chlore- Incineration Biological tleaunent or wet-air
oxidation to8owed by
- carbonadsorption
Beoze~. (chloromethyl)-l • Ie INCIN. (WETOX or CHOXO) tb CARBN; or
INCIN
Copper cyanide E6earolytlc oxidation 10U0wed by AiWne chbrination (cyanides);
alkarltle chlorination (cyanides); chemical pc'ec::ipitation, settling
chemical precipitation. sealing, and sludge dewaterinQ (metals)
fil1ndion lmetals) .
CyaOloes E6eetrolytic QXidation 1olloweO by AJkaIuwl chlorination (cyanides);
akaline chJorination (cyanides); chemical precipitation, settling
chemical precipitation. sealing, and sludge dewatering (metals)
fil1ration (metals1
Oteldnn incineration Biological tleaunem Of wet-alf
oxidation folowed by carbon
ad5Cm)tion
O.o-otethyt ().pyrazinyl - FSUBS; 01 INCIN. CARBN; or NON
rothioat.
Oimethoat. FSUBSi or 1NCtN. CARBN: .. INCiN
Aziridme IN~N. 1WETOXor~OXD) fb _ - :or
INCIN
Hydrocyantc acid E6eClrotytic oxidation toUOwecl by Alkaline chlorination (cyatUdes);
akaW1. c:htorination (cyanides); chemical pc'ecipitation. senling
chemical ptecipitation. senltng. and sludge dewatering (metals)
filtration(metals1
E%hanimidothioic acid. N· INCIN. (WETOX orCHOXD) tb CARBN; or
n(methylamino)carbonyl}oxy}-. methyl INCIN
eS1er
Hydrazine. methyl- FSUBS; CHOXD; CHRED; or CHOXO: CHREO; CARBN; BIODG:
INCIN. ORINCIN
.-
Methyl.pa:~hio'2.. __ Rotary kiln lnoneration ._.. BtOlogl~1 tr8a~~ent
P022
P010
P01l
P012
POlS
P016
K052
POOl
P028
P029
P024
P023
P020
POOS
POOS
P030
P037
P040
P044
P054
P063
P068
P066
P07l
'''aste Gcde
F03G
2
Arizona
Waste CodelTechnologies
3
e .. oelinillOn NonllQlJlo BOA T LiquId B oA T
NICOline. & salts INCIN. (WETOX or CHOXD) 10 CARBN; or
INCIN
8enzenamUle InClnerallon 81010glcaltrealment or wet-air
oxidalion followed by carbon
adsorptIOn
Osmium oxide RMETL; or RTHRM.
EndothaII FSUBS; or INCIN. (WETOX orCHOXO) to CARBN;or'
INCIN
ParathIOn Rotary kiln lOcineratlOn BlOloQical Ireatment
Pnorate Rotary kiln incineration Biologicallfeatment
Potassium cyanide Elecsrolytic oxidation lo/lowed by Alkaline chlorinatIOn icyanides);
alkaline chlorination (cyanides): chemical precipitation. senling
chemic::al.precipitation. senling. and slUdge dewatering (metals)
fi/tration(metals}
Propargyt alcohol FSueS; Of INCIN
SodIUm azide FSUBS; CHOXO; CHRED; or CHOXO; CHREO; CARBN; BIOOG
INCIN or INCIN
Sodium cyanide .Elecsrolytlc oxidation lollowed by IAlkahne chlotlnat'on (cyanides); I r' alkaline chlorination (cyanides); chemical precipitation. senhng
-:.:...::--.;..:,;: p1-~~~.~:':" •. ;~:::"-.;. I
:.:-.: ;:~=;c =~~:a1e:'::':; :~:~:!I~~
filtration (metals)
TetraethytdithlopyrophosphatCl FSUBS' Or INCIN j CARBN;o~ INCIN
Ammonium vanadate STAal Chemical PieciprtatlOn - Toxaphene InCineration Biologlcallreatment or wet·alr
oxidation 1t)llowed by carbon
adsorption
Acetone InoneratlOn Or tuel substrtutlOn Biological treatment or wet-alt
oxidation tpuoweCl oy caroon
adsorption ! -
Acetonnrile INCIN BioIoglcallrsatment or wet-air
oxidation tollowed by carbon ... adsorPtion
Acetyl chloride INCIN (WETOX or CHOXO) fb CAR8N; or
INCIN
Acrylamids INCIN (WETOX orCHOXO) Ib CARBN; or
INCIN
Acrylic acid FSUBS; oc.INCIN (WETOX orCHOXD) lb CARBN; or
INCIN
Amllrole INCIN
Aniline Incineration Biological treatment or wet-air
oxidation foUowed by carbOn
adsorption
Azaseme ·INCIN (WETOX Of CHOXO) fb CARBN; or
INCiN
Benzene Incineration Bio6ogtcaJ treatment or wet-air
oxidation loUowed by carbOn
adSOfDtion
Benzenesullonie acid chloride INCIN (WETOX or CHOXO) tb CAR8N; or
INCiN
BenzidUM INCIN (WETOX or CHOXO) fb CARBN;Or
INCIN
1.2.a.nzenechcat1xlxyllC acid, bis(2- Rotary kiln incineration 1:2
ethylhexvl) ester
1·Butanol Incineration or fuel substitutIOn Biological treatment or wet-air
oxidation tollowed by carbon
adsorOlion
ED ic:hlorohydfln INCIN (WETOX or CHOXO) Ib CARBN; or
INCIN
U002
P106
P102
P10S
P017
U007
U006
U003-
P087
POSS
pon
'POg4
pon
P10i
p"g
P,23
U008
U011
0012
uo15
U015
U031
U021
U020
U028
':;iste Cod
P075~
3
Arizona
Waste Code/Technologies
4
E oe 11 n j Ioj n Nonllqu d SO A T LIquid BOAT
Ethene, d'lloro· Incmeratlon B,olO£llcal lrealmenl or wel·all
oxidation lollowed by carbon
adsorption
Chloroform Inclnerallon BIOlogIcal lrealment or weI-au
oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption
o-Ghior~nol Incineration BIOlogical 1rea1mont or wel·au
oridallOn followed by carbon
adsorptIOn
Cteosote ItlCIneration (organa); IncaneratlOn (organics); chemICal
stabilization (Iud) precipitatIOn (lead)
Creso/ (Cresyhc acid) InCineration BIOlogICal treatment or wet·a.,
oxidation 'obowed by carbon
adsorphon
8enzeO(l, hexahydro· FSUBS; or JNCIN (WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN; or
INCIN
CydJphosphamlde -FSUBS; or INCAN CARBN; or INCtN
000 Inclnera110n BIOlogical treatment or wet-alf
I . oxidation followed by carbon
adsorPtion
lOOT Incineration - BIOioglCa11rea1ment or wet·a,r
_.... J_. __ '_H_.••,.~ ..... , ,..-.~__
I _ .... __•• _ ... _ •._ ........ -J -- - _., . adsolP1l0n
Dibromomethane InCineration BIological treatment or wet·a"
oxidation fo/Iowed by carbon
adsorplton
Di-n-bUlyf phthalat& Rotary Kiln InCIneration
p-Dichlorobenzene Biological treatment or wet-au
oxidation followeQ by carbon
adsorption
DichjoroditluQromethane IncineratIon Bio'ogical treatment or wet-air
... oxidation followed by carbon aosorotior.
Methylene Chloride
2.2-Bioxirane ;:5U85; or lNCIN (WETOX or CHOXO) tb CARBN; or
INClN
Olmethytamrne INCIN
.__ ..
(WETOX or CHOXD) ttl CARBN; or
, INC/N
" , ·Dimethylhydrazine FSUBS: CHOXO; CHRED; or CHOXD; CHRED; CARBN; BIOOG;
INCIN or lNC/tII
Dimethyl.sulfate FSU8S; CHOXD; CHREO; or CHOXO; CHRED; CARBN; 8/0OG
INCIN or INClN
1.2-8enzenedlCarDOxyltc acid. deoc:tyl Rotary kiln anc:tneration BOogic:altteaunen1 or..t-alf
ester oxidation follow-o by c:art:»on
adsorption
1.4-{)tethyleneoxlde Inc:inerahon or fuel subslilutlon BOogic:allreatmen.t or ..1-air
oxidation foliowed by carbon
adsorption -
1.,2-Diphenythydrazine FSU8S; CHOXO: CHRED; or CAR8N; or INON
INCIN
~m~ INCIN (WETOX or CHOXO) fc CARBN; or
INCIN
Acetic acid ethyl ester IncltleratlOn BIOlogICal treatment or wet..ir
oxidalion followed by cart>on
adsorption
Ethane, 1,1 -oxybis· Incineration Biological treatment or wg1-alf
oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption
U058
U060
UOS6
uoga
U092
U044
U052
U075
U06S
U048
UOS1
U06'
U080
U085
U103
U107
U108
U101
U110
U117
U112
Vaste COd
UOGAS fb NEUTR; Of NEUTR Chemical precipflallon
ArslnlC aCId. dlmethyl- VIlrifrcallon ChemICal Pf8Clpita1ion
AcetIC aod. lead(2.. ) sail IncmeratlOn followed by Chemeal oxldauon lollOwed by I slabili2allo~ chemlCz! :':(,CI~::2llOn ,
lead. bis(acetato-Q)lelrahydroxylri. Incinerallon lollowed by ChemICal reductIOn. lime or sulfide
stabilization precipitation. sludae dewaterino
2.S·FurandlOne FSUBS: or INCIl~ (WETOX orCHOXO) tb CAR8N; or
INC'N . --
Melphcuan INCIN
Methanol FSUBS: or INCIN. I(WETOX orCHOXO) fb CARSN: Of
INCrN
2·6L11anone ·tnclnerallon Biolooical treatment or wet-air
oxidation lollowed by carbon
adsorption I
2-8L11anone. peroxide FSUBS; CHOXO;CHREO; Of CHOXO; CHREO: CARBN; BIOOG:
I INCIN. orlNCIN
Methyl isobutyl ketone InClnerallon Biological trElalment or wet·all
I Ioxidation follOwed by cart>on
adsorotion
Naphthalene Incineration Biological treatment or wet-air
oxidation followed by carbon
, adsorption
Benzene. nnro· InCineration Bloloolcal treatment or wet-air
oxidation lollowed by carbon
adsorption
p-Nitropnenol Inclneralion Biological treatment or wet-air
oxidation lollowed by carbon
adsorDtion
Benzene. pemachkHonClro- InCltleration Biological treatment or wet-arr
oxidation .ollowed by carbon
adsorption
Phenol IncineratIOn 8toIogical treatment or_wet-a;r
oxidation lotlOwed by carbon
adsorption
2-Pacollne INCIN. (WE]OX or CHOXO) Ib CAR8N; or
INCtN
Pyridine
--_..- .. _-_.__.
Incineration Biologicalueatment or wet-air
oxidation followed by carbon
adsorDtion
, .3-6enzenediol FSUBS; OR INCIN. (WETOX Of CHOXO) to CAR8N; or
INCIN
Selenious acid StabiltzatlOn Chemical prectpnatlOn with
sulfides
5
Arizona
Waste Code/Technologies
6
~tlnilion NonllQuid BOAT L ,auld BOAT
EthenEl, tlltrachloro- Incmeratlon B,oloQlcallfeatmenl or wet·au
oxidation lollowed by carbon
---- -
adsorp"on _.-
Caroon tetrachloride Incmeratlon 6'lologlcallfea,menl or wet·au
oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption
Furan, teirahydro· FSUBS: or INCIN. (Wt: lOX or CHOXO) f.> CARBN: or
INCIN
ThIOurea INCIN. (WETOX Of CHOXD) fb CARBN; or
INCIN
Benzenll, methyl· Incineration BlOloolCaltreatmenl or wel-alr
oxidatIOn followed by carbon
adsorption
Benz.nll. , ,3-di,socyanatomethyl. FSUBS; or INCIN
Elhane, 1.1.1 -tnctlloro- Inclfleralion BIOlogical IIeatmenl or wet-all
oxidation followed by caroon
adsorption
Ethane. ',' .2-lnchloro· IncineratIOn BIOlogICal trealment or wet·au
oxidalion followed by carbon
adsorPtion
Elhene, trchloro- Inclneratlon BiologlCaltrealment or wel-aar
oxidation followed by carbon
adsorOllon
Ethene. trlchloro- InCineration 61010glcalJreatment or weI-air
oxidation lollowed by carbon
adsorption